Criminal Liability For Harassment Through Anonymous Calls
Legal Context in Nepal
Harassment via anonymous calls is typically prosecuted under:
Nepal Penal Code, 2017: Sections on criminal intimidation, defamation, and harassment.
Electronic Transactions Act, 2008: Sections dealing with misuse of telecommunication and digital communication.
Key elements to establish liability include:
Identification of the caller.
Intent to harass, intimidate, or cause mental distress.
Repetition or threatening nature of calls.
Case 1: Kathmandu – Threatening Calls to Business Owner (2018)
Facts:
A business owner received repeated anonymous calls threatening property damage.
Calls came late at night; caller demanded money.
Legal Issue:
Whether repeated anonymous calls with threats constitute criminal intimidation under Penal Code, Section 181.
Outcome:
Investigation traced calls through telecom records.
District Court convicted the accused under criminal intimidation and fined him; imprisonment was suspended due to first-time offense.
Significance:
Shows the importance of telecom evidence in linking anonymous calls to the accused.
Harassment via calls can be treated as criminal intimidation if threats are serious.
Case 2: Pokhara – Stalking via Anonymous Calls (2019)
Facts:
A female college student received daily anonymous calls containing sexual remarks and threats.
She reported to the police after two months.
Legal Issue:
Whether sending repeated anonymous calls with sexual content amounts to harassment under Penal Code Section 182 and Electronic Transactions Act.
Outcome:
Court convicted the accused of sexual harassment and stalking, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Telecom records and witness testimony were key evidence.
Significance:
Establishes that anonymous calls with sexual or threatening content can attract both criminal and cyber-related liability.
Case 3: Lalitpur – Political Activist Threatened (2020)
Facts:
An activist received anonymous calls threatening violence during a protest.
Calls intended to intimidate the activist into silence.
Legal Issue:
Can anonymous calls aimed at suppressing lawful activity constitute criminal intimidation?
Outcome:
Court ruled the harassment as criminal intimidation under Section 181.
Convicted and imposed a 1-year jail sentence.
Significance:
Reinforces protection for political expression.
Anonymous calls used to suppress rights can attract criminal liability.
Case 4: Birgunj – Business Rivalry and Anonymous Calls (2021)
Facts:
Owner of a transport company received anonymous calls threatening his employees and reputation.
Calls appeared linked to a competitor trying to harm business.
Legal Issue:
Liability of competitors for anonymous harassment, and evidentiary proof through telecom records.
Outcome:
Investigation linked VoIP numbers to competitor’s office.
Court convicted the accused of criminal intimidation and harassment, awarding compensation to victim.
Significance:
Highlights use of digital traces to prove anonymous harassment.
Commercial rivalry does not justify threatening behavior.
Case 5: Kathmandu – Mental Distress Through Repeated Calls (2022)
Facts:
Victim received 50+ anonymous calls over 3 months, causing severe mental distress.
Calls included threats of personal harm and defamation.
Legal Issue:
Whether repeated anonymous calls causing psychological harm constitute criminal liability.
Outcome:
Court applied Penal Code Sections 181, 182, and 184.
Perpetrator sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation.
Significance:
Establishes that even non-physical threats causing mental distress can be prosecuted.
Victim impact is important in sentencing.
Case 6: Remote District – Hoax Threat Calls (2023)
Facts:
Anonymous caller repeatedly informed police about bomb threats at a school.
Investigation traced calls to a prankster.
Legal Issue:
Whether false anonymous calls with potential public harm constitute criminal liability.
Outcome:
Convicted under criminal intimidation, causing public panic, and misuse of communication.
Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows that anonymous calls causing public alarm are criminally punishable.
Evidentiary and Prosecution Challenges
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Identification of caller | Telecom records, VoIP logs, and digital footprints are critical. |
| Proving intent | Must show calls were meant to threaten, harass, or intimidate. |
| Repeated conduct | One-off calls may not be sufficient; repetition strengthens the case. |
| Consent and perception | Victim’s perception of harassment is relevant for sentencing. |
| Digital anonymity | IP masking and fake numbers complicate evidence collection. |
Conclusion:
Criminal liability for harassment through anonymous calls in Nepal relies on demonstrating intent, repetition, and psychological or physical threat. Courts have increasingly relied on telecom evidence, witness testimony, and victim statements to secure convictions. Cases show that harassment can be personal, commercial, political, or even public safety-related, and liability can extend to severe punishment including imprisonment and fines.
RELATED Blog
0 comments