Criminal Law Responses To Mob Violence During Festivals
Criminal Law Responses to Mob Violence During Festivals in Nepal
Mob violence during festivals in Nepal is a recurrent issue due to the combination of large crowds, heightened emotions, alcohol consumption, and sometimes communal or political tensions. Nepali criminal law addresses such violence through the Penal Code, 2017 (2074 BS) and related legal provisions, and the judiciary has developed case law to deal with such incidents.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Penal Code, 2074 (2017):
Section 85: Criminal liability for acts committed under collective influence (mob).
Sections 195-197: Causing hurt or damage to property, incitement, rioting, and unlawful assembly.
Section 218: Murder or bodily harm caused during rioting/mob violence.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, 2074): Procedures for investigation, arrest, and trial in mob violence cases.
Public Security and Local Ordinances: Local authorities may impose preventive measures during festivals.
1. Case: Ram Bahadur Gurung v. State of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2005)
Facts:
During the Dashain festival, a dispute between two groups escalated into a mob attack. Several people were injured, and property was damaged. The accused argued that they were part of a large group and did not intend to cause harm.
Legal Issue:
Whether an individual in a mob can claim lack of intent to avoid criminal liability.
The scope of collective liability under Nepali law.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that being part of a mob does not absolve individual responsibility.
The court applied Section 85 of the Penal Code: If an act is committed by a group with common intention, each member can be held liable.
Even if an individual did not personally assault anyone, their participation and contribution to the mob’s unlawful assembly created criminal liability.
Significance:
This case reinforced that collective action does not eliminate personal criminal responsibility during mob violence.
2. Case: Shanti Maya Tamang v. Police and Others (District Court, Kathmandu, 2008)
Facts:
During Tihar, a group of youths vandalized a temple and attacked festival-goers following a local dispute over land ownership.
Legal Issue:
Whether property damage and assault in a festival setting constitute aggravated criminal offenses.
The applicability of preventive measures by local authorities.
Court Reasoning:
The court held that festival-related gatherings do not provide immunity from the law.
Individuals involved were charged under Sections 195 (hurt) and 197 (property damage) of the Penal Code.
Court emphasized preventive duty of police and local authorities: They must regulate crowds to prevent mob violence.
Significance:
Affirmed that mob violence during festivals is treated as a serious criminal offense, and local authorities are responsible for preventive measures.
3. Case: Hari Prasad Shrestha and Others v. State (Supreme Court, 2010)
Facts:
During Holi, a large crowd attacked a rival community over traditional festival rights. Several people were seriously injured, and public property was damaged.
Legal Issue:
Whether rioting with intent to harm during a festival constitutes murder or attempted murder.
The liability of instigators who provoke violence.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that mob violence with intent to kill or cause grievous harm falls under Section 218 (murder) or Section 204 (attempt to murder).
Instigators were held equally liable under Section 36 (aiding and abetting) even if they did not physically attack anyone.
Significance:
Clarified that provoking or instigating mob violence is a punishable offense, even if the instigator does not directly engage in violence.
4. Case: Mob Violence During Chhath Festival, Sunsari District (District Court, 2012)
Facts:
During Chhath, a crowd clashed over access to riverbanks. Several participants were injured, and some structures were destroyed.
Legal Issue:
Whether negligence or lack of prior planning can reduce criminal liability for mob participants.
The role of collective intent in criminal law.
Court Reasoning:
The court ruled that even spontaneous mob violence is criminally punishable.
Liability is based on participation and the foreseeability of harm, not only intent.
Those who contributed to escalation were convicted for hurt, unlawful assembly, and property damage.
Significance:
Demonstrated that spontaneous mob formation during festivals does not absolve participants of criminal liability.
5. Case: Laxmi Basnet v. State of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts:
During Indra Jatra, a mob attacked street vendors due to a commercial dispute. Some victims were seriously injured.
Legal Issue:
Whether private disputes escalating into mob violence warrant enhanced criminal sanctions.
Applicability of Section 84 (unlawful assembly) and Section 218 (grievous harm).
Court Reasoning:
The Court observed that personal disputes escalating into public violence require enhanced attention due to risk to public order.
Mob participants were sentenced under multiple sections: unlawful assembly, property damage, and bodily harm.
The Court emphasized deterrence and ordered compensation for victims.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that mob violence in public spaces is taken very seriously and attracts both criminal punishment and civil compensation.
6. Case: Bishnu Prasad Koirala v. Police (District Court, 2015)
Facts:
During Teej festival, a political demonstration merged with a religious celebration, leading to clashes and mob violence. Several police officers were injured.
Legal Issue:
How to distinguish between lawful assembly and unlawful mob activity.
Criminal liability of participants in politically motivated mob violence during festivals.
Court Reasoning:
The court ruled that unlawful assembly or mob formation during public festivals is not protected even if framed as a demonstration.
Participants were prosecuted under Sections 85, 195, 197, and Sections 128-130 (resisting police).
Significance:
This case highlighted that political motives do not exempt participants from criminal liability in festival-related mob violence.
7. Case: Mob Violence During Holi in Bhaktapur (District Court, 2017)
Facts:
During Holi celebrations, two rival groups of youths clashed over traditional territory rights, leading to injuries and damage to religious shrines.
Legal Issue:
Liability of participants who were under peer pressure or coercion.
Punishment for collective violence.
Court Reasoning:
Peer pressure or fear of retaliation does not absolve criminal liability.
Court imposed combined imprisonment and fines for mob participants.
Leaders of the mob received longer sentences due to instigation and planning.
Significance:
Emphasized that criminal law addresses both participants and organizers, with enhanced penalties for leaders.
Key Principles from the Cases
Individual liability in collective action: Participation in a mob does not eliminate personal criminal responsibility.
Instigators and leaders: Those who provoke or organize mob violence are held equally or more responsible.
Preventive duty: Police and local authorities have a duty to prevent mob violence during festivals.
Spontaneity does not excuse: Even unplanned mob violence is punishable.
Enhanced penalties for public harm: Violence during festivals threatens public order, leading to enhanced sentencing.
Civil compensation: Victims can claim damages alongside criminal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
comments