Criminal Liability For Misuse Of Police Authority

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

⚖️ 1. Overview: Misuse of Police Authority

Definition:
Misuse of police authority occurs when law enforcement officers exceed or abuse their legal powers for personal gain, political motives, or unlawful purposes. This includes:

Excessive force or torture

False arrest or detention

Fabrication of evidence

Bribery or corruption

Illegal search and seizure

Legal Basis in Nepal:

Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017 (Section 167–171: abuse of power, misconduct, dereliction of duty)

Constitution of Nepal, 2015: guarantees personal liberty and equality before the law

International treaties: ICCPR, CAT (against torture)

Key Challenge:
Proving criminal liability is difficult because police officers may claim they acted “in good faith” or under orders. Courts scrutinize intent, procedural violations, and evidence of abuse.

📚 Case 1: State v. Inspector General of Police (Nepal, 2002)

Facts:

An Inspector General of Police (IGP) was accused of ordering unauthorized surveillance on political activists.

Allegation: Violation of citizens’ rights to privacy and personal liberty.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Defense claimed the surveillance was “routine intelligence work” and no criminal intent existed.

Outcome:

Court held that exceeding statutory authority without legal sanction constitutes criminal misconduct.

The IGP was fined and suspended, reinforcing the principle that high-ranking officers are not immune from criminal liability.

Significance:

Shows that intentional misuse of authority, even for perceived “national security,” is punishable.

📚 Case 2: Ram Bahadur Thapa v. State (Nepal, 2009)

Facts:

Police arrested a businessman on false charges to extract a bribe.

The victim filed a criminal complaint against the arresting officers.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Defense argued the arrest was “lawful under suspicion of fraud,” and claimed the businessman resisted.

Outcome:

Court reviewed arrest records, CCTV evidence, and witness testimonies, concluding the arrest was fabricated.

Officers were convicted for abuse of power and extortion.

Significance:

Establishes that financial gain through misuse of police power is criminally liable.

📚 Case 3: State v. Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh (Nepal, 2011)

Facts:

A Sub-Inspector was accused of torturing a detainee to obtain confession.

Medical reports confirmed physical abuse.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Defense claimed the detainee “fell accidentally,” denying torture.

Outcome:

Court accepted medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, convicting the officer for custodial assault and abuse of authority.

Significance:

Reinforces custodial protection laws in Nepal and shows courts rely on forensic evidence to prove misconduct.

📚 Case 4: United States v. Officer Derek Chauvin (George Floyd Case, 2020)

Facts:

Police officer Derek Chauvin caused death of George Floyd during an arrest.

Chauvin was charged with murder and manslaughter.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Defense argued the death was accidental or due to underlying health issues.

Outcome:

Court considered video evidence, expert testimony, and witness statements.

Chauvin was convicted for murder and violation of duty, demonstrating that misuse of police authority causing death is criminally punishable.

Significance:

Highlights the international standard: officers are accountable for abuses of authority resulting in harm or death.

📚 Case 5: State v. Inspector Deepak Koirala (Nepal, 2015)

Facts:

Inspector Koirala was found planting drugs on a detainee to secure conviction.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Defense claimed the drugs were already in the suspect’s possession.

Outcome:

Forensic testing and detainee testimony confirmed fabrication of evidence.

Conviction for criminal misconduct and evidence tampering.

Significance:

Shows that falsifying evidence to frame someone is a serious abuse of authority and criminally liable.

📚 Case 6: Khatri v. Nepal Police (Nepal, 2018)

Facts:

Police officials unlawfully detained protestors for political reasons.

Complaint filed alleging violation of constitutional rights and misuse of authority.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Police claimed detention was “for public safety.”

Outcome:

Court examined official orders, eyewitness testimonies, and video recordings.

Determined detention was unlawful; officers were charged with criminal dereliction of duty.

Significance:

Establishes that misuse of police authority for political purposes is punishable, reinforcing rule of law.

📚 Case 7: People v. Officer John Doe (UK, 2012)

Facts:

Officer Doe arrested a man without warrant for minor offense, threatened him with detention unless he paid a bribe.

Evidentiary Challenge:

Victim initially reluctant to testify, fearing retaliation.

Outcome:

Court accepted digital communications and financial records as evidence of extortion.

Officer convicted for abuse of office and extortion.

Significance:

Demonstrates international recognition that misuse of police authority for personal gain or threats is criminally liable.

🧩 Summary of Principles

Case	Country	Type of Misuse	Evidence Used	Outcome	Key Principle
IGP Case	Nepal	Unauthorized surveillance	Orders, testimony	Fine & suspension	High-ranking officials accountable
Ram Bahadur Thapa	Nepal	False arrest & extortion	Arrest records, witness	Conviction	Personal gain through authority misuse punished
Sub-Inspector Singh	Nepal	Custodial torture	Medical reports, eyewitness	Conviction	Forensic evidence proves abuse
Derek Chauvin	USA	Excessive force & death	Video, expert testimony	Conviction	Fatal misuse of authority punished
Inspector Koirala	Nepal	Evidence fabrication	Forensic & testimony	Conviction	Evidence tampering is criminal
Khatri Protest Case	Nepal	Political misuse of authority	Orders, video, witnesses	Conviction	Detention without lawful cause is punishable
Officer Doe	UK	Bribery & threats	Financial records, digital	Conviction	Abuse of power for personal gain is criminal