Case Law Analysis On Wrongful Prosecution And Acquittals

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction

Wrongful prosecution occurs when a person is charged, investigated, or prosecuted for a crime without sufficient evidence, due process, or legal justification, leading to potential harm to the individual’s reputation, liberty, and rights. Acquittal is the legal recognition of the individual’s innocence, usually following trial or appeal.

Nepalese law recognizes both criminal liability for false accusations and compensation for wrongful prosecution in certain circumstances. The courts have addressed this issue through writs, criminal appeals, and public interest litigation (PIL).

2. Relevant Legal Provisions

Constitution of Nepal (2015)

Article 18(1): Right to personal liberty; no one shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to law.

Article 19: Right to equality before law and protection against arbitrary arrest.

Article 46: Right to seek compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

Muluki Criminal Code, 2017

Section 207: Punishment for filing false cases.

Section 208: Punishment for false accusations causing arrest or legal harm.

Section 300–305: General provisions on criminal liability and acquittals.

Criminal Procedure Code, 2074

Section 138: Bail and preventive measures to avoid undue deprivation of liberty.

Section 256–262: Provisions for appeals and acquittals.

3. Case Law Analysis

Case 1: Ram Chandra Shah v. Government of Nepal (2001, NKP 2058)

Facts:
The petitioner, Ram Chandra Shah, was prosecuted for alleged embezzlement of public funds while working as a government officer. After a lengthy trial, he was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Issues:

Whether wrongful prosecution violates constitutional rights.

Whether the State is liable to compensate individuals acquitted after malicious or negligent prosecution.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that prosecution without sufficient evidence is a violation of Article 18 and 19 of the Constitution.

Directed the State to provide rehabilitation and compensation to the petitioner.

Emphasized the duty of prosecutors and police to act responsibly.

Significance:
Set a precedent recognizing wrongful prosecution as a violation of fundamental rights, not just a procedural error.

Case 2: Sita Gurung v. Ministry of Home Affairs (2005, NKP 2061)

Facts:
Sita Gurung was accused of theft and arrested without proper investigation. After 6 months of detention, she was acquitted.

Issues:

Whether prolonged detention in absence of sufficient evidence violates human rights.

Compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

Judgment:

Supreme Court ruled that arbitrary detention and prosecution without evidence constitute violation of Article 18 and 46.

Ordered the government to compensate the petitioner financially and issue an official apology.

Noted that police negligence in investigation contributes to wrongful prosecution.

Significance:
Affirmed that wrongful prosecution often involves institutional accountability, not just procedural errors.

Case 3: Hari Prasad Dhakal v. Nepal Police (2010, NKP 2067)

Facts:
The petitioner was charged with fraud and detained for over a year. Evidence presented by the prosecution was weak, and the trial court ultimately acquitted him.

Issues:

Can police officers be held responsible for malicious prosecution?

Remedies for acquittal after prolonged detention.

Judgment:

Court emphasized that police officers conducting investigations negligently or maliciously may be held civilly or criminally liable.

Ordered monetary compensation to the victim and recommended disciplinary action against responsible officers.

Reinforced Supreme Court’s proactive stance in protecting personal liberty.

Significance:
Highlighted that prolonged detention without evidence intensifies liability of investigative authorities.

Case 4: Goma Shrestha v. Government of Nepal (2014, NKP 2071)

Facts:
Goma Shrestha was accused of corruption in a local municipality project. After investigation, she was acquitted because all charges were baseless.

Issues:

Does malicious prosecution affect social and professional reputation?

Does the State owe compensation for reputational damage?

Judgment:

Supreme Court acknowledged that wrongful prosecution causes social and economic harm.

Directed official rehabilitation, monetary compensation, and removal of defamatory records from official files.

Reiterated that prosecution must follow due diligence and legal safeguards.

Significance:
Broadened the understanding of compensation to include non-monetary rehabilitation, such as restoration of reputation.

Case 5: Pramila Rai v. Office of Attorney General (2017, NKP 2074)

Facts:
Pramila Rai was accused of illegal land transfer by a subordinate official. She was detained briefly and later acquitted by the court due to insufficient evidence.

Issues:

Responsibility of public officials in filing false cases.

Remedies for individuals acquitted after wrongful prosecution.

Judgment:

Court emphasized civil and criminal liability of officials filing false cases knowingly.

Ordered compensation to the petitioner and recommended disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officer.

Highlighted the importance of checks and balances in prosecution.

Significance:
Established that wrongful prosecution by public officials is actionable and not immune from accountability.

Case 6: Bishnu Kumari v. Ministry of Home Affairs (2020, NKP 2077)

Facts:
Bishnu Kumari was charged with fraud based on forged evidence submitted by a private complainant. She spent 8 months in pre-trial detention and was eventually acquitted.

Issues:

How to handle wrongful prosecution involving collusion or fabricated evidence.

Extent of State liability when investigation is influenced by private interests.

Judgment:

Supreme Court stated that detention and prosecution based on fabricated evidence constitute violation of fundamental rights.

Directed compensation and formal apology, as well as a review of investigation protocols.

Recommended training for police and prosecutors to prevent wrongful prosecution.

Significance:
Reinforced State responsibility in cases involving collusion or malicious intent.

Case 7: Sunita Thapa v. Government of Nepal (2022, NKP 2079)

Facts:
Sunita Thapa was accused of financial misconduct at a cooperative. During investigation, there was no prima facie evidence, and she was acquitted at trial.

Issues:

Whether prosecution without proper inquiry constitutes malicious prosecution.

Remedies under Nepalese law.

Judgment:

Supreme Court clarified that even if prosecution is technically lawful, failure to follow due process may amount to wrongful prosecution.

Ordered monetary and reputational compensation, including public acknowledgment of acquittal.

Highlighted importance of investigative diligence.

Significance:
Emphasized the preventive role of courts in avoiding wrongful prosecution and protecting citizen rights.

4. Judicial Trends

Principle	Case Reference
Wrongful prosecution violates fundamental rights	Ram Chandra Shah v. GoN
Compensation for detention and reputational harm	Sita Gurung v. MoHA
Police negligence can trigger liability	Hari Prasad Dhakal v. Nepal Police
Non-monetary rehabilitation (restoring reputation)	Goma Shrestha v. GoN
Public officials filing false cases are accountable	Pramila Rai v. Office of AG
Fabricated evidence = State responsibility	Bishnu Kumari v. MoHA
Due process violations constitute wrongful prosecution	Sunita Thapa v. GoN