Evidentiary Standards In Prosecuting Homicide Cases In Nepal
I. Introduction
Homicide, including murder, culpable homicide, and negligent homicide, is one of the most serious criminal offences in Nepal. Successful prosecution relies heavily on meeting evidentiary standards, which ensure that:
The accused is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence is lawfully obtained and admissible in court.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are appropriately weighed.
Legal Framework
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Guarantees right to a fair trial and prohibits self-incrimination (Article 14).
Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017
Section 165–170: Covers murder, grievous hurt, and culpable homicide.
Sections 56–58: Rules on admissibility of evidence, including confessions.
Evidence Act of Nepal
Sets rules for documentary, oral, and circumstantial evidence.
Establishes principles for expert testimony, forensic evidence, and burden of proof.
II. Evidentiary Standards in Homicide Cases
Prosecutors must satisfy the following:
Proof of Death
Medical reports, post-mortem examinations, and autopsies confirm cause and time of death.
Identification of the Perpetrator
Eyewitness testimony, confessions, CCTV footage, and forensic evidence.
Motive and Intent
Circumstantial evidence such as prior threats, quarrels, or criminal records.
Causation
Medical and forensic evidence linking the accused’s act directly to the death.
Burden of Proof
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Any reasonable uncertainty leads to acquittal.
III. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State v. Ram Bahadur (Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts: Ram Bahadur was accused of murdering his neighbor during a dispute.
Evidence: Eyewitnesses testified seeing him strike the victim; post-mortem confirmed blunt trauma.
Decision: Convicted for murder. Court emphasized that corroboration between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence met the standard of proof.
Significance: Highlights importance of combining direct and forensic evidence in homicide prosecution.
Case 2: Gopal Thapa v. State (Supreme Court, 2013)
Facts: Gopal was accused of killing a shopkeeper during a robbery.
Evidence: Confession recorded by police; however, alleged under duress. Fingerprints and footprints found at the crime scene.
Decision: Court admitted forensic evidence but rejected confession due to coercion. Conviction based on circumstantial and forensic evidence.
Significance: Confirms inadmissibility of coerced confessions and reliance on objective evidence.
Case 3: Sita Rai v. State of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts: Accused allegedly stabbed her husband during domestic quarrel.
Evidence: Post-mortem showed knife wounds; no eyewitnesses. Testimony from neighbors about heated argument.
Decision: Court convicted under culpable homicide; stressed that circumstantial evidence, when complete and consistent, is sufficient.
Significance: Establishes that circumstantial evidence alone can prove guilt, provided it excludes reasonable doubt.
Case 4: State v. Krishna KC (Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts: Krishna accused of poisoning a business rival.
Evidence: Toxicology report confirmed poison; CCTV footage showed him handling the drink.
Decision: Convicted for murder; court noted the critical role of scientific evidence in establishing causation.
Significance: Demonstrates the importance of forensic and expert evidence in homicide prosecutions.
Case 5: Hari Lama v. State (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts: Accused allegedly shot a man during a family dispute.
Evidence: Ballistic examination linked bullet to accused’s firearm; eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene.
Decision: Convicted for murder; court emphasized chain of custody and proper documentation of evidence.
Significance: Highlights procedural rigor required for physical and ballistic evidence.
Case 6: State v. Bishnu Gurung (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts: Alleged death due to mob attack; Bishnu accused of leading attack.
Evidence: Witnesses varied; video footage inconsistent.
Decision: Court acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding individual participation.
Significance: Reinforces that uncertainty or lack of direct evidence can lead to acquittal, even if some circumstantial evidence exists.
Case 7: Sunita Sharma v. State (Supreme Court, 2020)
Facts: Accused of strangling neighbor over land dispute.
Evidence: Post-mortem confirmed asphyxiation; fingerprints and DNA on victim’s house.
Decision: Conviction upheld; court noted that DNA and fingerprints corroborated circumstantial evidence.
Significance: Illustrates integration of forensic science with traditional evidence to meet the standard of proof.
IV. Observations
Direct vs Circumstantial Evidence:
Direct eyewitness testimony is strongest but must be corroborated with medical or forensic evidence.
Circumstantial evidence alone can convict if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Scientific and Forensic Evidence:
Post-mortem reports, toxicology, ballistic, fingerprint, and DNA evidence are increasingly decisive.
Confession Rules:
Confessions under duress are inadmissible; voluntary confessions must follow legal procedure.
Chain of Custody:
Physical and digital evidence must be preserved and documented to ensure credibility.
Burden of Proof:
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; doubts benefit the accused.
V. Conclusion
The prosecution of homicide in Nepal relies on a careful combination of direct, circumstantial, and forensic evidence, along with strict adherence to legal procedures. Case law demonstrates:
The judiciary’s insistence on objective and admissible evidence,
Recognition of scientific and medical expertise,
Upholding constitutional safeguards against coercion,
Ensuring the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is strictly applied.
This balance ensures justice while protecting the rights of both victims and accused.
RELATED Blog
comments