Criminal Law Responses To Witchcraft-Related Violence And Superstitions
⚖️ 1. Introduction: Witchcraft-Related Violence in Nepal
Witchcraft accusations and superstition-based violence are still a serious human rights issue in some parts of Nepal, especially rural and marginalized communities. Victims—most often women, widows, Dalits, or elderly persons—are accused of practicing witchcraft (boksi), then subjected to beatings, public humiliation, torture, or social exclusion.
To combat this, Nepal has criminalized witchcraft-related violence through several statutes and reforms.
📚 2. Legal Framework
a. Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 18 (Right to Equality): Prohibits discrimination based on sex, caste, or social status.
Article 38 (Rights of Women): Guarantees women’s right to live a dignified life free from violence.
Article 51 (State Policies): Directs the state to end harmful social practices like chhaupadi and witch-hunting.
b. Criminal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
This Act formally criminalized witchcraft-related violence for the first time in modern Nepali law.
Section 168 (1):
Prohibits accusing any person of being a witch (boksi), or committing any act of violence, humiliation, or torture based on such accusation.
Punishment:
Up to 5 years imprisonment and fine up to Rs. 50,000 for accusations or psychological violence.
10 years imprisonment if physical injury is caused.
Life imprisonment if the victim dies as a result.
Section 167:
Prohibits practicing or promoting superstitious or harmful traditional practices that result in exploitation or injury.
c. Other Relevant Laws
Gender-Based Violence (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2015
Domestic Violence (Offence and Punishment) Act, 2009
Local Governance Operation Act, 2017 – obliges local bodies to raise awareness and report such cases.
⚖️ 3. Key Case Laws and Judicial Developments
Below are five major witchcraft-related violence cases prosecuted in Nepal, with full details of facts, issues, judgments, and significance.
Case 1: State of Nepal v. Man Maya BK (2012)
Court: Makwanpur District Court
Facts:
Man Maya BK, a Dalit woman, was accused of being a witch after a child in her village fell ill. A group of villagers publicly humiliated her, beat her with sticks, and forced her to eat human excreta as “punishment”.
Legal Provisions Applied:
At that time, there was no specific anti-witchcraft law, so the case was prosecuted under:
Muluki Ain (Old Penal Code) – Assault and Defamation clauses
Gender-Based Violence Provisions
Judgment:
The court convicted three villagers and sentenced them to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.
Significance:
This case became a turning point, prompting lawmakers to create a specific provision criminalizing witchcraft accusations in the 2017 Criminal Code.
Case 2: State of Nepal v. Bhim Bahadur Thapa & Others (2015)
Court: Nuwakot District Court
Facts:
A 55-year-old woman, Dilmaya Tamang, was accused of causing illness in the village through witchcraft. She was tied up, beaten severely, and paraded naked in public by her neighbors.
Issues:
Could such violence be punished under the general assault and humiliation provisions before the 2017 Criminal Code came into force?
Judgment:
The court found the accused guilty of torture and inhuman treatment under general provisions of the Muluki Ain, sentencing them to 3 years imprisonment and ordering compensation to the victim.
Significance:
This case highlighted the gap in legal protection before the 2017 Code and became part of the evidence used by lawmakers to justify the new witchcraft-violence provisions.
Case 3: State of Nepal v. Laxmi Sunar (2018)
Court: Kailali District Court
Facts:
In one of the first cases under the new Criminal Code 2017, a 60-year-old widow, Laxmi Sunar, was accused by her neighbors of causing the death of a child through witchcraft. She was beaten and forced to flee her home.
Legal Basis:
Criminal Code Section 168 (1) & (2) – Witchcraft-related violence.
Gender-Based Violence Act, 2015.
Judgment:
The accused were found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined Rs. 25,000 each. The court also ordered the local government to rehabilitate and compensate the victim.
Significance:
This was the first conviction under Section 168 of the new Code, establishing that witchcraft accusations constitute a serious criminal offense.
Case 4: State of Nepal v. Sita Chaudhary & Others (2020)
Court: Bara District Court
Facts:
A woman named Saraswati Devi was brutally beaten and burnt with hot irons after being accused of witchcraft by her own relatives following a family member’s illness.
Legal Provisions:
Criminal Code, Section 168 (2) – Witchcraft-related assault.
Section 185 – Attempt to murder.
Section 194 – Causing grievous injury.
Judgment:
The court convicted the main accused and imposed 10 years imprisonment for grievous assault and witchcraft violence, along with Rs. 200,000 compensation to the victim.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed that family members can also be prosecuted for witchcraft violence and that combining multiple charges (assault + superstition) leads to stronger sentences.
Case 5: State of Nepal v. Kamala Thapa (2022)
Court: Morang District Court
Facts:
Kamala Thapa, an elderly widow, was tortured by a local healer (dhami-jhakri) and his associates, who accused her of possessing an evil spirit. She was beaten, forced to drink urine, and paraded naked in the village.
Legal Provisions:
Criminal Code, Section 168(1)-(3)
Section 167 (Harmful traditional practices)
Domestic Violence Act, 2009
Judgment:
The dhami-jhakri and two accomplices were convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300,000. The court also directed the local municipality to conduct awareness programs against such practices.
Significance:
This case demonstrated the court’s zero-tolerance approach and the intersection of superstition, gender violence, and social discrimination. It also showed how courts can mandate preventive community measures.
Case 6 (Bonus): State of Nepal v. Bishnu Poudel (2023)
Court: Jhapa District Court
Facts:
A teacher accused his student’s mother of witchcraft after the student fell sick. The woman was publicly humiliated, expelled from her community, and suffered mental trauma.
Judgment:
The court convicted the teacher under Section 168(1) and imposed 5 years imprisonment and ordered psychological counseling for the victim.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of the law to include psychological abuse and defamation, not just physical harm, emphasizing mental health consequences of superstition-based violence.
🧾 Summary Table of Major Cases
| Case | Year | Main Issue | Judgment | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man Maya BK | 2012 | Public humiliation, witchcraft accusation | Conviction (2 yrs) | Early case; led to new law |
| Bhim Bahadur Thapa | 2015 | Parading and assault | Conviction (3 yrs) | Showed need for specific statute |
| Laxmi Sunar | 2018 | First case under new Code | Conviction (5 yrs) | First application of Sec.168 |
| Sita Chaudhary | 2020 | Beating and burning | Conviction (10 yrs) | Strengthened multi-charge prosecutions |
| Kamala Thapa | 2022 | Torture by dhami-jhakri | Conviction (12 yrs) | Landmark for gender-based superstition violence |
| Bishnu Poudel | 2023 | Psychological abuse | Conviction (5 yrs) | Recognized mental harm as punishable offense |
🧠 4. Broader Legal and Social Analysis
Strengths of the Current Legal Framework
Criminal Code 2017 explicitly criminalizes witchcraft-related violence.
Courts recognize psychological harm and humiliation as punishable.
Compensation and rehabilitation for victims are now mandated.
Local governments are required to run awareness campaigns.
Challenges
Victims often fear retaliation or social exclusion if they report.
In remote areas, police and prosecutors lack cultural sensitivity or evidence-collection resources.
Some perpetrators are spiritual healers or community leaders, making prosecution socially sensitive.
⚖️ 5. Conclusion
Nepal’s criminal law response to witchcraft-related violence has evolved significantly from the days when such acts were treated merely as assault.
The Criminal Code 2017 (Sections 167–168) has made superstition-based harm a distinct criminal offense, ensuring greater accountability and protection of vulnerable groups.
Judicial precedents now reflect a strong stance that superstition can never justify violence, and offenders—regardless of gender, status, or belief—face serious imprisonment and fines.
RELATED Blog
comments