Case Law Analysis On Torture And Cruel Treatment In Custody
I. Introduction
Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in custody is a serious violation of both national and international law. This applies to police stations, prisons, detention centers, and other facilities where individuals are held.
Legal Framework
International Law
Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984 – prohibits torture and obligates states to prevent and punish acts of torture.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 – Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules).
Nepalese Law
Constitution of Nepal, 2015 – Article 22 prohibits torture and ensures right to human dignity.
Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017 – Sections 140–145 criminalize torture, ill-treatment, and abuse of power by public officials.
Police Act and Prison Act – contain provisions regulating treatment of detainees.
II. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: D.K. v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2003)
Facts: D.K., a detainee, alleged severe physical abuse and coercion by police officers to extract confessions.
Legal Issue: Whether custodial torture violates fundamental rights and criminal law.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that forced confessions under torture were inadmissible and ordered criminal investigation against responsible officers.
Significance: Reinforced that torture violates constitutional rights, and evidence obtained under torture is void.
Case 2: Khatri v. State of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2008)
Facts: Prisoner Khatri alleged prolonged solitary confinement, physical assault, and deprivation of food by jail authorities.
Legal Issue: Whether such treatment constituted cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under law.
Decision: Court directed compensation for the victim and initiated departmental and criminal action against jail officials.
Significance: Highlighted accountability of prison authorities under criminal and civil law for mistreatment.
Case 3: Narayan Prasad v. Nepal Police (Supreme Court, 2012)
Facts: Narayan Prasad was detained for questioning, during which he was physically assaulted and threatened by police.
Legal Issue: Custodial torture as a violation of Criminal Code and constitutional rights.
Decision: Court ordered prosecution of responsible officers under Sections 140 and 141 of the Criminal Code for torture and abuse of power.
Significance: Established that police officers cannot shield themselves with “official duty” while committing torture.
Case 4: Sunil Thapa v. Ministry of Home Affairs (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts: Sunil Thapa alleged mental harassment and threats during police interrogation, including being handcuffed and deprived of sleep.
Legal Issue: Whether psychological torture without physical injury is actionable under law.
Decision: Court recognized that psychological torture constitutes cruel treatment and ordered legal remedies and compensation.
Significance: Broadened the legal understanding of torture to include mental and psychological abuse, not just physical harm.
Case 5: Prakash Sharma v. Central Jail Administration (Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts: Prisoner filed complaint about overcrowded cells, denial of medical treatment, and verbal abuse by officials.
Legal Issue: Whether denial of basic human needs and degrading conditions constitute cruel treatment.
Decision: Court ruled that inhumane prison conditions amount to cruel and degrading treatment, directing improvements and compensation.
Significance: Reinforced prisoners’ right to humane conditions, aligning domestic law with the UN Mandela Rules.
Case 6: Ramesh Adhikari v. State of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts: Ramesh alleged police officers used electric shocks and beatings to force self-incrimination during investigation.
Legal Issue: Legality of using torture to obtain evidence.
Decision: Supreme Court prohibited the use of torture in interrogations, directed criminal proceedings against officers, and emphasized that evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible.
Significance: Strengthened protections against torture in the investigative process.
Case 7: Amnesty International Reports and Public Interest Litigations (Nepal, 2020)
Facts: Complaints were filed regarding custodial deaths due to abuse, overcrowding, and medical neglect.
Decision: Supreme Court directed government to establish independent monitoring of detention centers and ensure criminal accountability for custodial deaths.
Significance: Showed judicial recognition of systemic issues in custody and promoted structural reforms.
III. Observations
Criminal Accountability:
Officers engaging in torture face prosecution under domestic criminal law, even when acting under “official authority.”
Constitutional Safeguards:
Nepal’s courts consistently treat torture as a violation of fundamental rights (Article 22) and human dignity.
Evidence Protection:
Any confession or evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible in court.
Broad Definition of Torture:
Courts now recognize psychological torture, deprivation of basic needs, and systemic negligence as criminally actionable.
Compensation and Remedies:
Victims can seek compensation and rehabilitation, demonstrating the judiciary’s commitment to restorative justice.
IV. Conclusion
Custodial torture and cruel treatment remain serious criminal offences in Nepal. Case law demonstrates a progressive trend:
Expanding the definition of torture,
Holding police and prison authorities accountable,
Protecting both physical and psychological integrity of detainees,
Ensuring victims receive legal remedies and compensation.
The combination of constitutional law, criminal code, and judicial vigilance has strengthened protections against custodial torture in Nepal, though enforcement and monitoring remain key challenges.
RELATED Blog
comments