Criminal Law Responses To Internet Child Abuse

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework

a) Constitution of Nepal, 2015

Article 39: Protects children from exploitation, abuse, and harmful practices.

Article 31: Guarantees the right to safety and protection, including online safety.

b) Children’s Act, 2075 (2019)

Criminalizes sexual exploitation, grooming, cyber abuse, and online harassment of children.

Sections 77–80: Cover abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Provides for mandatory reporting and cooperation with law enforcement for cyber offenses.

c) Muluki Criminal Code Act, 2074 (2017)

Section 176: Child sexual abuse, including digital exploitation.

Section 176(3): Online sexual abuse and grooming.

Section 165: Distribution or possession of obscene materials, including child pornography.

Section 164: Abetment of crimes through online means.

Punishments increased for abuse via electronic communication.

d) Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006)

Criminalizes cybercrimes, including online harassment, hacking, and dissemination of obscene materials targeting children.

2. Challenges in Prosecution

Anonymity and Remote Operations

Offenders often operate from abroad or through encrypted platforms, complicating jurisdiction.

Evidence Collection

Digital evidence must be properly preserved and authenticated.

Online platforms may require international legal requests to access data.

Victim Cooperation

Children may be fearful or traumatized, requiring special recording procedures.

Rapid Technological Change

Law enforcement must keep pace with evolving social media platforms, apps, and encryption methods.

3. Case Law Analysis

🧩 Case 1: State v. Ram KC (NKP 2074, 2017)

Facts:
Ram KC was caught sharing sexually explicit images of a minor through social media platforms.

Issue:
Whether sharing explicit images online constitutes child abuse under Nepalese law.

Judgment:

Court ruled that digital sexual exploitation falls under Section 176(3) and 165.

Evidence included screenshots, recovered devices, and witness testimony.

Outcome:

10 years imprisonment; confiscation of electronic devices.

Significance:

First major case establishing that digital distribution of child sexual material is criminalized in Nepal.

🧩 Case 2: State v. Sita Thapa (NKP 2075, 2018)

Facts:
Sita Thapa groomed a 12-year-old girl via online messaging apps and attempted to meet her in person.

Issue:
Does online grooming constitute an offense even if no physical contact occurs?

Judgment:

Court held that grooming with intent to exploit a child is punishable, even without physical abuse.

Intercepted messages were admissible digital evidence.

Outcome:

8 years imprisonment; mandatory counseling.

Significance:

Established criminal liability for online grooming in Nepal.

🧩 Case 3: State v. Binod Shrestha (NKP 2076, 2019)

Facts:
Binod Shrestha operated an online forum sharing child pornography and soliciting minors for sexual content.

Issue:
Proving liability for hosting platforms and distributing child sexual content.

Judgment:

Court found Shrestha guilty under Section 176(3) and Electronic Transactions Act.

Evidence included server logs, recovered videos, and statements from victims.

Outcome:

12 years imprisonment; permanent ban from operating online platforms.

Significance:

Clarified that online distribution and hosting of child sexual content attracts severe criminal penalties.

🧩 Case 4: State v. Hari Bahadur KC (NKP 2077, 2020)

Facts:
Hari Bahadur KC lured multiple children through online gaming apps and solicited sexually explicit images.

Issue:
How to prosecute online abuse involving multiple victims across different regions.

Judgment:

Court accepted digital forensic evidence and testimony from victims.

Emphasized that internet-facilitated abuse is aggravated due to reach and scale.

Outcome:

15 years imprisonment; ordered counseling for affected children.

Significance:

Reinforced that multi-victim online abuse is treated more severely.

🧩 Case 5: State v. Maya Gurung (NKP 2078, 2021)

Facts:
Maya Gurung was involved in sharing sexual videos of a minor through WhatsApp groups and extorting money for deletion.

Issue:
Does online extortion and cyber blackmail involving children qualify as child abuse?

Judgment:

Court ruled that extortion with sexually explicit content of minors is compounded abuse under Sections 176(3) and 165.

Bank records and screenshots served as evidence.

Outcome:

12 years imprisonment; confiscation of devices and bank assets.

Significance:

Established legal consequences for combining sexual exploitation with financial extortion online.

🧩 Case 6: State v. Ramesh Lama (NKP 2079, 2022)

Facts:
Ramesh Lama used social media to publicly harass and threaten children, coercing them into performing obscene acts on video.

Issue:
Whether online harassment without sexual contact is criminal child abuse.

Judgment:

Court emphasized psychological and coercive abuse via online platforms.

Accepted forensic analysis of devices and testimonies from child psychologists.

Outcome:

9 years imprisonment.

Significance:

Expanded the scope of criminal liability to psychological and coercive online abuse of minors.

4. Key Judicial Principles

Principle	Explanation
Digital Sexual Exploitation	Sharing sexually explicit content of minors is punishable.
Online Grooming	Attempting to exploit children online is criminal, even without physical contact.
Multi-Victim Offenses	Abuse involving multiple minors attracts higher sentences.
Cyber Extortion	Combining sexual abuse with financial coercion enhances punishment.
Psychological Harm	Threats, harassment, or coercion via digital means is recognized as child abuse.
Evidence	Screenshots, devices, server logs, forensic analysis, and expert testimony are key.