Criminal Liability Of Police Officers For Custodial Torture
Legal Framework in Nepal
1. Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 18(1): Right to personal liberty; protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Article 22(1): Right against self-incrimination and forced confessions.
Article 12 & 13: Right to life, liberty, and dignity; protection against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
2. Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Section 184 & 185: Criminalizes torture, assault, and abuse by public officials.
Section 94 & 95: Punishment for causing grievous injury or death while in official custody.
3. Police Act, 2012 & Directives
Police must uphold human rights standards. Torture or coercion during interrogation is illegal.
4. International Obligations
Nepal is a party to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which obligates the state to prevent and punish custodial torture.
Case Law Analysis
Case 1: Ram Bahadur v. Nepal Police
Facts:
Ram Bahadur was arrested on suspicion of theft. During interrogation, he was allegedly beaten to extract a confession.
Injuries were documented by a medical officer.
Issues:
Can a police officer be held criminally liable for torture in custody?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of Nepal held that custodial torture is a criminal offense.
Officers responsible were convicted under Sections 184 and 185 of the Muluki Criminal Code.
Significance:
Set a precedent for direct criminal liability of police officers for physical abuse in custody.
Emphasized the importance of medical evidence in proving custodial torture.
Case 2: Sita Gurung v. Government of Nepal
Facts:
Sita Gurung alleged that police officers tortured her to confess involvement in fraud.
She suffered internal injuries and mental trauma.
Issues:
Is mental suffering considered under custodial torture?
Judgment:
The Court recognized mental and psychological abuse as part of custodial torture.
Officers were prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment, and Sita was awarded compensation.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of custodial torture to include psychological coercion.
Reinforced the right to dignity and humane treatment under the constitution.
Case 3: Krishna Prasad v. Nepal Police
Facts:
Krishna Prasad was arrested for alleged smuggling. During interrogation, he was threatened and beaten to coerce a confession.
He later retracted the confession in court.
Issues:
Can a coerced confession be admitted, and are officers liable?
Judgment:
The Court held that the confession was inadmissible as it was obtained under torture.
Officers involved were held criminally liable for torture, emphasizing that coercion violates constitutional rights.
Significance:
Reinforced that custodial torture nullifies any evidence obtained.
Strengthened constitutional safeguards against abuse of authority.
Case 4: Ram Kumar v. State
Facts:
Ram Kumar was detained for alleged embezzlement. During custody, officers allegedly tied him and administered electric shocks.
Medical records and witness testimony confirmed torture.
Issues:
Liability of police for severe physical torture leading to injury.
Judgment:
Officers were convicted under Sections 184 and 94 (causing grievous injury).
Court highlighted that police immunity does not protect illegal acts committed in custody.
Significance:
Set a precedent for strict punishment for extreme forms of custodial torture.
Highlighted importance of forensic and witness evidence in prosecution.
Case 5: Hari Shrestha v. Nepal Police
Facts:
Hari Shrestha alleged torture during interrogation for extortion allegations.
Officers denied the allegations, claiming compliance with standard interrogation procedures.
Issues:
Burden of proof in custodial torture cases.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that in cases of alleged torture, the burden shifts to the police to prove lawful treatment.
Officers were found guilty due to credible medical and witness evidence.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of burden of proof on police in custodial torture cases.
Ensured that victims are not disadvantaged in proving abuse.
Case 6: Anju Karki v. Government of Nepal
Facts:
Anju Karki claimed that she was physically and mentally abused in police custody to implicate her in a financial scam.
Issues:
Are officers liable for torture if the accused is eventually acquitted?
Judgment:
Court held that custodial torture constitutes an independent crime regardless of the outcome of the underlying case.
Officers were convicted and fined.
Significance:
Clarified that custodial torture liability is separate from the substantive crime.
Emphasized protection of human rights over procedural convenience.
Key Principles from the Cases
Police officers are directly criminally liable for custodial torture.
Physical and psychological abuse are both punishable.
Evidence from medical examination and witnesses is crucial.
Coerced confessions are inadmissible, protecting constitutional rights.
Burden of proof lies on police once torture is alleged.
Custodial torture is punishable irrespective of the outcome of the alleged offense.
RELATED Blog
comments