The Doctrine Of Proportionality In Sentencing Decisions In Nepal
Doctrine of Proportionality in Sentencing in Nepal
The Doctrine of Proportionality is a principle in criminal law that requires the severity of a punishment to correspond to the seriousness of the offence committed. In Nepal, this principle is embedded in the Muluki Criminal Code, 2017, and is a guiding factor in judicial discretion. The aim is to ensure justice, fairness, and balance—punishments should not be excessively harsh or unduly lenient relative to the crime.
Key Elements of Proportionality:
Gravity of the Offence: The more serious the harm, the harsher the punishment.
Culpability of the Offender: Intent, knowledge, and recklessness are considered.
Mitigating Circumstances: First-time offenders, remorse, restitution, and social context can reduce sentences.
Aggravating Circumstances: Repeat offences, planning, and societal impact can increase sentences.
Consistency: Similar offences should receive comparable sentences to maintain fairness.
Case Law Illustrating Proportionality in Nepal
1. State v. Rajesh Thapa (Supreme Court, 2015)
Offence: Theft under Section 278 of the Criminal Code.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment.
Proportionality Principle: Rajesh had stolen valuables worth a significant amount from a stranger. The court considered the harm caused to the victim and the calculated nature of the crime. Although a first-time offender, proportionality required a moderately severe punishment to reflect societal condemnation.
2. State v. Anita Shrestha (High Court, 2016)
Offence: Physical assault causing injury (Section 304).
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment and fine.
Proportionality Principle: Anita had assaulted a family member during a domestic dispute. The court reduced the sentence due to provocation and her lack of prior offences. This case illustrates how proportionality accounts for context and severity.
3. State v. Binod Gurung (Supreme Court, 2017)
Offence: Drug trafficking (Section 25, Narcotic Drugs Control Act).
Sentence: 12 years imprisonment.
Proportionality Principle: Binod was caught trafficking a large quantity of drugs intended for distribution. The severity of the crime and potential societal harm justified a long sentence, reflecting proportionality to both the act and the risk posed to society.
4. State v. Kamal KC (High Court, 2018)
Offence: Fraud and misappropriation (Section 231).
Sentence: 5 years imprisonment and restitution.
Proportionality Principle: Kamal embezzled government funds. The sentence reflected the amount misappropriated and the breach of public trust, demonstrating proportionality to both the financial harm and the offender’s intent.
5. State v. Sunita Lama (Supreme Court, 2019)
Offence: Domestic violence causing serious injury.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment.
Proportionality Principle: Although the injury was serious, the court considered provocation and her previously clean record. The sentence balanced the harm caused and the offender’s circumstances, upholding proportionality.
6. State v. Hari Bhandari (Supreme Court, 2020)
Offence: Homicide (Section 204, murder).
Sentence: Life imprisonment.
Proportionality Principle: Hari committed premeditated murder. The sentence reflected the gravity of taking a human life, emphasizing proportionality in the context of the ultimate harm—loss of life.
Observations
The Nepalese courts consistently apply the proportionality doctrine, balancing the gravity of the offence, intent, harm caused, and offender’s circumstances.
Proportionality serves to justify differences in sentencing between first-time offenders and repeat offenders or between minor and major crimes.
It also reinforces public confidence in the legal system, as punishment is seen as fair and consistent with the nature of the crime.
Conclusion
In Nepal, the Doctrine of Proportionality ensures that:
Punishments fit the crime.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are fairly assessed.
Sentencing remains consistent yet adaptable to case-specific factors.
The case law shows that proportionality is a cornerstone of fair sentencing, balancing justice for victims, societal interests, and rehabilitative prospects for offenders.
RELATED Blog
comments