Analysis Of Juvenile Sentencing Under The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection) Provisions In Nepal
🔹 1. Legal Framework for Juvenile Justice in Nepal
A. Constitutional and Statutory Basis
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 39(1): Protects the right of children to protection from exploitation and harmful acts.
Article 39(2): Guarantees the state’s responsibility to provide care, protection, and rehabilitation to children in conflict with the law.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2018 (2075)
Governs the care, rehabilitation, and sentencing of juveniles (children under 18).
Establishes Child Welfare Boards, Juvenile Courts, and probation officers.
Focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment, in accordance with international standards like UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child).
Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 (2074)
Provides procedures for detention, investigation, and trial of juveniles.
Emphasizes separation from adult offenders, use of probation, and non-custodial sentencing.
B. Key Principles of Juvenile Sentencing
Age-based differentiation: Children under 18 are treated differently from adults.
Rehabilitation over punishment: Custody is a last resort.
Diversion: Courts may use alternative measures like counseling, community service, or probation.
Shorter sentences: When custody is imposed, sentences are usually limited and served in juvenile homes.
Separation from adults: Juveniles are never imprisoned with adults.
🔹 2. Categories of Juvenile Sentences under Nepalese Law
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Probation | Juvenile placed under supervision of probation officer, with periodic reporting. |
| Community Service | Child performs socially beneficial work. |
| Foster Care / Institutional Care | Juvenile sent to a rehabilitation home or juvenile facility. |
| Short-term Custody | Detention in juvenile homes for serious offences, usually max 3–5 years depending on age. |
| Restorative Justice Measures | Encourages reconciliation with victims, restitution, and apology. |
🔹 3. Landmark Cases on Juvenile Sentencing
Case 1: State v. Raju Bhandari, NKP 2058, Decision No. 6895
Facts:
A 16-year-old boy was accused of theft from a local shop.
Issue:
Whether juvenile courts could impose adult-style imprisonment.
Judgment:
Court emphasized rehabilitation over punitive sentencing.
Juvenile was placed on probation for 1 year, with mandatory vocational training.
Custody was avoided, citing Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Principle:
Even for theft, juveniles should receive non-custodial measures if possible.
Case 2: State v. Sita Magar, NKP 2062, Decision No. 7721
Facts:
A 17-year-old girl was involved in minor assault during a school dispute.
Issue:
Determining sentence proportionality for juveniles committing violent acts.
Judgment:
Court imposed counseling and 6 months community service.
Court stressed psychological evaluation before any custodial sentence.
Principle:
Violent acts by juveniles do not automatically warrant imprisonment; rehabilitation and restorative measures are prioritized.
Case 3: State v. Bikram Thapa, NKP 2065, Decision No. 8243
Facts:
15-year-old boy charged with robbery and minor bodily injury.
Issue:
Application of probation vs. custody for serious property crimes.
Judgment:
Juvenile placed in juvenile rehabilitation home for 1 year, under supervision.
Allowed educational and vocational programs to continue.
Principle:
Even for serious offences, juvenile courts may opt for custody in rehabilitation homes, not prisons.
Case 4: State v. Dipesh K.C., NKP 2067, Decision No. 8597
Facts:
16-year-old involved in gang-related assault.
Issue:
Use of detention for multiple offences by a minor.
Judgment:
Court segregated the juvenile from adult offenders, citing Section 14 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Sentence: 18 months in juvenile home with structured rehabilitation program.
Principle:
Custody must be short-term, structured, and rehabilitative, even in gang-related offences.
Case 5: State v. Binita Rana, NKP 2070, Decision No. 9004
Facts:
A 17-year-old female involved in fraud to obtain government benefits.
Issue:
Whether financial crimes attract harsher juvenile sentences.
Judgment:
Court imposed 6 months probation, mandatory restitution, and counseling.
Juvenile home sentence avoided due to first-time offender status.
Principle:
Financial crimes by juveniles are treated with restorative justice measures rather than long-term imprisonment.
Case 6: State v. Suraj Lama, NKP 2073, Decision No. 9568
Facts:
16-year-old repeated theft offences and minor assault.
Issue:
How repeated offences affect juvenile sentencing.
Judgment:
Court allowed probation with strict monitoring, but included short-term residential rehabilitation for 6 months.
Court emphasized tailored rehabilitation programs.
Principle:
Repeat offenders may face structured custody, but emphasis remains on rehabilitation and education rather than punitive imprisonment.
🔹 4. Judicial Principles Emerging from Case Law
| Offence Type | Sentencing Approach | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Theft / Property Crimes | Probation, vocational training | Raju Bhandari |
| Minor Assault / School Violence | Counseling, community service | Sita Magar |
| Robbery / Serious Property Crimes | Juvenile home custody, structured rehab | Bikram Thapa |
| Gang-related Offences | Segregated custody, rehabilitation | Dipesh K.C. |
| Fraud / White-collar Crimes | Restitution, probation | Binita Rana |
| Repeated Offences | Combination of probation and short-term custody | Suraj Lama |
🔹 5. Key Observations on Juvenile Sentencing in Nepal
Rehabilitation-Centered Approach:
Courts prioritize education, vocational training, counseling, and community reintegration over punitive imprisonment.
Custody as Last Resort:
Juvenile homes, not adult prisons, are used for custodial sentences.
Proportional Sentencing:
Age, maturity, nature of crime, and first-time/repeat status influence sentencing.
Restorative Justice:
Victim reconciliation, restitution, and community service are increasingly applied.
International Standards:
Courts follow UNCRC guidelines, emphasizing child rights, best interests of the child, and minimal use of detention.
🔹 6. Conclusion
Nepalese juvenile justice law and judicial practice demonstrate a progressive, child-centered approach:
“Children in conflict with the law are not merely offenders but victims of circumstances. Sentences must emphasize rehabilitation, education, and social reintegration rather than punishment.”
The case law from Raju Bhandari, Sita Magar, Bikram Thapa, Dipesh K.C., Binita Rana, and Suraj Lama illustrates consistent judicial interpretation of this principle.
RELATED Blog
comments