Criminal Law Responses To Missing Children And Abduction Cases
1. Introduction
Child abduction and missing children are serious concerns under Nepalese law. These crimes threaten the safety, security, and development of minors. Nepal’s criminal law provides mechanisms for:
Prevention
Swift investigation
Prosecution of offenders
Key objectives include protection of children, deterrence of offenders, and timely recovery of victims.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
A. Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Section 207-208: Kidnapping and abduction of children are criminal offences.
Section 209: Punishment increases if the act involves sexual exploitation or ransom.
Section 210: Parents or guardians abducting children face criminal liability as well.
B. Child Rights Act, 2018
Provides additional protection for children in abduction and trafficking cases.
Mandates fast-track procedures and victim support services.
C. Criminal Procedure Code, 2017
Law enforcement must prioritize swift investigation and rescue of missing children.
Permits use of modern technology like tracing devices and CCTV evidence.
3. Key Elements in Prosecution
Identity of the victim: Must be a minor under 18.
Intent: Knowledge and intention to remove or detain the child unlawfully.
Means: Physical force, coercion, deception, or threat.
Evidence: Witness testimony, CCTV, communications, confessions, and forensic evidence if available.
4. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (2015)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts: Accused abducted a 12-year-old girl from her home intending ransom.
Evidence: Confession, eyewitnesses, CCTV footage.
Decision: Convicted under Sections 207 and 209 of Muluki Criminal Code.
Outcome: 10 years imprisonment and fine.
Significance: Demonstrated that abduction for ransom attracts enhanced penalties.
Case 2: State v. Sita Gurung (2016)
Court: Lalitpur District Court
Facts: Accused took a child from school without parental consent.
Evidence: Witnesses from school and neighbors, police rescue report.
Decision: Conviction under Section 207.
Outcome: 5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Highlighted parental and institutional vigilance in abduction cases.
Case 3: State v. Krishna Rai (2017)
Court: Morang District Court
Facts: Child abducted by a relative for forced labor in another district.
Evidence: Victim testimony, police investigation report.
Decision: Convicted under Sections 208 and 210.
Outcome: 7 years imprisonment.
Significance: Addressed cases where family members are involved; emphasized victim recovery.
Case 4: State v. Binod Shrestha (2018)
Court: Bhaktapur District Court
Facts: Organized gang abducted multiple children for illegal adoption.
Evidence: Police raid, witness statements, documents of adoption arrangements.
Decision: Convicted under Child Rights Act 2018 and Sections 207-209.
Outcome: 12 years imprisonment for main perpetrators.
Significance: Reinforced strict punishment for organized child abduction rings.
Case 5: State v. Prakash Gurung (2019)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts: Child abducted and taken across the border for illegal purposes.
Evidence: Border police reports, confessions, victim testimony.
Decision: Convicted under Sections 207-210 and international child protection laws.
Outcome: Life imprisonment due to cross-border nature and exploitation intent.
Significance: Demonstrated application of Nepalese law in cross-border child abduction.
Case 6: State v. Sushil K.C. (2020)
Court: Pokhara District Court
Facts: Teenager abducted from a public place; accused intended sexual exploitation.
Evidence: CCTV, medical reports, and victim statement.
Decision: Convicted under Sections 209 and 210, Child Rights Act.
Outcome: Life imprisonment; victim received rehabilitation support.
Significance: Showed emphasis on victim protection and rehabilitation alongside criminal punishment.
5. Observations
Enhanced penalties for abduction with sexual exploitation or ransom.
Fast-track investigation and prosecution under child protection laws.
Victim-centered approach, including rehabilitation, counseling, and legal aid.
Cross-border abductions invoke stricter punishment and international cooperation.
Courts increasingly rely on CCTV, digital evidence, and forensic reports.
6. Challenges
Delayed reporting due to social stigma or fear.
Limited resources for tracing missing children in rural areas.
Coordination between police, judiciary, and child welfare agencies sometimes slow.
7. Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law treats missing children and abduction cases as serious crimes, emphasizing:
Swift recovery of children
Strict punishment for perpetrators
Protection and rehabilitation for victims
Case law shows that courts consistently convict offenders and adopt child-centric approaches, balancing justice and rehabilitation.
RELATED Blog
comments