Criminal Liability For Dowry-Related Deaths And Gender Justice In Nepal
🧾 1. Introduction: Dowry and Gender Justice in Nepal
Dowry refers to the property, money, or gifts given by the bride’s family to the groom or his family at the time of marriage. Despite being illegal, dowry practices persist in Nepal and often lead to harassment, abuse, and in extreme cases, death of brides.
Dowry-related deaths are a critical issue in Nepal’s pursuit of gender justice, as they intersect with women’s human rights, criminal liability, and societal norms.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework in Nepal
2.1 Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 38: Protects women’s rights, prohibits discrimination, and promotes gender equality.
Article 42: Ensures the right to social justice, including protection from exploitation and violence.
2.2 Muluki Criminal Code (2017)
Key provisions:
Section 177: Dowry harassment (dowry demand, mental/physical torture).
Punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment and fines.
Section 178: Dowry-related death / suspicious death due to dowry harassment.
Punishable by 10–15 years imprisonment or life imprisonment, depending on circumstances.
Section 179: Attempt to commit dowry-related homicide.
Section 176: Minor forms of domestic abuse related to dowry.
2.3 Muluki Civil Code (Marriage Act)
Prohibits demanding or giving dowry; violations are voidable and criminalized.
Goal: Criminal law seeks to punish perpetrators, deter dowry practices, and protect women.
đź“š 3. Dowry-Related Deaths: Criminal Liability and Judicial Response
Dowry deaths often occur due to burning, poisoning, or physical abuse, usually within 7 years of marriage. Nepalese courts have developed a judicial understanding linking dowry harassment to culpable homicide.
Case 1: State v. Ramesh Thapa (2067 BS / 2010 AD)
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa repeatedly harassed his wife for additional dowry. When the family failed to meet demands, the wife was found dead under suspicious circumstances (burn injuries).
Issue:
Whether the death qualifies as dowry-related and the husband can be criminally liable.
Decision:
Court found direct harassment and coercion for dowry as contributing factors to death.
Convicted Ramesh under Section 178 (dowry-related death).
Sentence: 12 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Courts recognize dowry harassment as causative of death, and liability extends to husbands and family members who pressure the bride.
Case 2: State v. Binita KC (2070 BS / 2013 AD)
Facts:
Binita KC was married into a family that demanded money and gifts beyond marriage settlement. Continuous harassment and assault led to her death (suspected poisoning).
Issue:
Link between harassment and culpable homicide.
Decision:
Conviction under Section 178 for dowry-related death.
Court highlighted pattern of harassment and failure to provide medical help.
Sentence: Life imprisonment for the husband, 10 years for in-laws.
Principle:
Courts punish not only the direct abuser but also co-conspirators in the family.
Case 3: State v. Suman Bhandari (2071 BS / 2014 AD)
Facts:
Bride died due to severe burns after repeated domestic abuse over dowry demands.
Issue:
Whether accidental death during domestic quarrel counts as dowry-related.
Decision:
Court relied on testimonies and prior history of harassment.
Convicted under Sections 177 & 178.
Sentence: 15 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Pattern of abuse and prior threats establishes dowry-related criminal liability, even if the death appears accidental.
Case 4: State v. Prakash Gurung (2073 BS / 2016 AD)
Facts:
Prakash Gurung’s wife was pressured to bring cash and gold. When she could not, she was confined and subjected to physical abuse, leading to her death.
Issue:
Applicability of criminal liability for coercion leading to death.
Decision:
Convicted under Section 178 for dowry-related death.
Court emphasized intentional harassment and systemic abuse.
Sentence: Life imprisonment.
Principle:
Dowry death is a distinct criminal category in Nepalese law; intent and coercion are key elements.
Case 5: State v. Dipika Sharma & Family Members (2075 BS / 2018 AD)
Facts:
Dipika Sharma’s in-laws and husband demanded additional dowry months after marriage. She was confined, starved, and tortured, leading to death.
Issue:
Whether multiple family members can be held criminally liable for dowry death.
Decision:
All adult family members involved in harassment convicted under Sections 177 & 178.
Sentences ranged from 10 years to life imprisonment.
Court stated collective liability applies in dowry-related crimes.
Principle:
Dowry-related death recognizes joint liability, reinforcing gender justice and deterrence.
Case 6: State v. Shanti KC (2076 BS / 2019 AD)
Facts:
Bride died under suspicious circumstances within 2 years of marriage; prior complaints to police existed but were ignored.
Issue:
Negligence of authorities and legal accountability in dowry deaths.
Decision:
Court criticized delays and negligence in protecting victims.
Convicted husband and in-laws for dowry death and abetment.
Ordered state investigation into police inaction.
Principle:
Gender justice includes accountability for state actors who fail to protect women from dowry abuse.
🧩 4. Critical Analysis
| Aspect | Legal Position | Judicial Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Dowry harassment, coercion, and death linked | Courts interpret liberally to include physical, mental, and economic abuse |
| Punishment | Sections 177–178: 3 years to life imprisonment | Courts favor maximum punishment in dowry deaths |
| Joint Liability | Family members, in-laws, abettors | Courts hold entire household accountable |
| Gender Justice | Protects women’s rights | Victim-centered approach; state negligence criticized |
| Evidence | Pattern of abuse, threats, complaints | Prior harassment and witness testimony crucial for conviction |
🧠5. Conclusion
Criminal liability for dowry-related deaths in Nepal has developed into a robust legal mechanism supporting gender justice:
Explicit criminalization of dowry harassment and dowry deaths.
Severe penalties including life imprisonment for death cases.
Joint liability for co-conspirators within the family.
Courts increasingly emphasize victim protection and state responsibility.
Progressive interpretation promotes gender justice and deterrence against dowry practices.
âś… Summary of Key Cases
| Case | Year (BS) | Core Issue | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Ramesh Thapa | 2067 | Dowry harassment leading to death | Harassment causally linked to death |
| State v. Binita KC | 2070 | Coercion & in-law liability | Joint punishment for family members |
| State v. Suman Bhandari | 2071 | Pattern of abuse | Dowry death even if accidental |
| State v. Prakash Gurung | 2073 | Coercion & death | Intentional harassment = criminal liability |
| State v. Dipika Sharma | 2075 | Collective abuse | Multiple family members liable |
| State v. Shanti KC | 2076 | Police negligence | State accountability in gender justice |
RELATED Blog
comments