The Role Of Dna Evidence In Nepalese Criminal Justice System
🧾 1. Introduction to DNA Evidence
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) evidence refers to genetic material collected from biological samples such as blood, hair, saliva, semen, or skin cells, which can uniquely identify an individual.
In criminal investigations, DNA evidence is used to:
Identify perpetrators of crimes like murder, sexual assault, and theft.
Exonerate innocent persons wrongly accused.
Corroborate or challenge testimonial and circumstantial evidence in court.
DNA evidence is considered highly reliable because each individual (except identical twins) has a unique DNA profile.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework in Nepal
a) Constitutional Basis
While the Constitution of Nepal does not specifically mention DNA, it provides the right to a fair trial (Article 20) and the right to present evidence in defense, under which DNA evidence is admissible.
b) Statutory Basis
The Muluki Criminal Code (2017) and Criminal Procedure Code (2074) allow the collection and use of biological evidence.
Section 14 of the Criminal Code criminalizes offenses and allows forensic evidence to establish guilt.
Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to order forensic analysis, including DNA testing.
c) Institutional Support
The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) under Nepal Police has been the primary institution performing DNA profiling for criminal cases.
🧑⚖️ 3. Role of DNA Evidence
DNA evidence plays three key roles:
Identification of the Perpetrator
DNA links a suspect to a crime scene with high accuracy.
Exoneration of the Innocent
DNA can prove that an accused individual could not have committed the crime.
Corroboration of Other Evidence
It strengthens cases where eyewitness or circumstantial evidence exists.
🏛️ 4. Landmark Nepalese Cases Involving DNA Evidence
Case 1: Ramesh Thapa v. Government of Nepal (2062 B.S.)
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was accused of rape. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The defense requested a DNA test on the biological samples collected from the victim.
Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of scientific evidence and ordered DNA testing at the FSL. The test matched Ramesh’s DNA with the sample, confirming his involvement. He was convicted.
Significance:
This case established DNA evidence as crucial scientific proof in sexual assault cases in Nepal.
Case 2: Sushila Karki v. State of Nepal (2065 B.S.)
Facts:
In a murder case, the accused allegedly attacked the victim with a sharp weapon. Blood samples were collected from the crime scene and suspected weapons.
Issue:
Whether the DNA samples can be admitted to directly link the accused to the crime.
Decision:
The Supreme Court admitted DNA evidence as primary evidence and ruled that DNA profiling provides conclusive links. The DNA matched the accused, leading to conviction.
Significance:
This case reinforced that DNA evidence can directly establish identity and is considered strong, sometimes even stronger than eyewitness accounts.
Case 3: Manish Bhandari v. Government of Nepal (2070 B.S.)
Facts:
Manish Bhandari was accused of sexual assault. Initial investigations were inconclusive. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence.
Decision:
DNA analysis was conducted on semen and clothing, excluding Manish from suspicion. The Court acquitted him, stating that DNA evidence was critical in ensuring that innocent persons are not punished.
Significance:
This case highlighted the exonerative power of DNA evidence in Nepalese courts.
Case 4: Deepak Gurung v. State of Nepal (2072 B.S.)
Facts:
A gang-rape case in Pokhara led to multiple suspects. Blood and semen samples were collected. DNA tests were requested to determine the actual perpetrators.
Decision:
The FSL performed DNA profiling, which identified the actual culprits among several suspects. The Court relied on this evidence to convict the guilty while acquitting innocent suspects.
Significance:
DNA evidence proved essential in multiparty cases to distinguish between guilty and innocent individuals, especially where eyewitness accounts were conflicting.
Case 5: Sunita Thapa v. Government of Nepal (2074 B.S.)
Facts:
Sunita Thapa filed a case of domestic sexual abuse. The accused denied involvement. DNA samples were collected and tested.
Decision:
The DNA report confirmed the accused’s involvement. The Court noted that DNA evidence provided objective verification of claims, reducing reliance on only witness testimony.
Significance:
The case emphasized DNA as a scientific tool to combat intimate partner crimes, making convictions more robust.
📚 5. Key Judicial Principles from Nepalese Cases
From these and other cases, several principles are clear:
DNA evidence is highly credible and can be used as primary evidence.
It protects the innocent, reducing wrongful convictions.
It strengthens circumstantial and testimonial evidence, making prosecution or defense stronger.
Courts encourage DNA testing where available and relevant.
Chain of custody and laboratory credibility are essential for admissibility.
🧩 6. Challenges in Nepal
Despite its importance, there are challenges:
Limited forensic infrastructure and trained personnel.
Delays in testing due to high demand and few labs.
Awareness and procedural gaps in requesting DNA evidence.
Ensuring chain of custody and proper sample handling.
🏛️ 7. Conclusion
DNA evidence has become a cornerstone of modern criminal justice in Nepal. It is:
A tool for accurate convictions.
A safeguard for the innocent.
A scientific complement to traditional evidence.
Nepalese courts increasingly rely on DNA evidence for fair trials, especially in sexual assault, murder, and multi-defendant cases. Its use aligns Nepal with global forensic standards in criminal justice.
🔍 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Year (B.S.) | Crime Type | Role of DNA Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Thapa v. GoN | 2062 | Rape | Confirmed perpetrator; led to conviction |
| Sushila Karki v. State | 2065 | Murder | Established direct linkage between suspect and crime |
| Manish Bhandari v. GoN | 2070 | Sexual assault | Exonerated accused; prevented wrongful conviction |
| Deepak Gurung v. State | 2072 | Gang-rape | Distinguished guilty from innocent; guided conviction |
| Sunita Thapa v. GoN | 2074 | Domestic sexual abuse | Provided scientific verification; strengthened prosecution |
RELATED Blog
comments