Judicial Precedents On Sentencing Proportionality In Nepal
1. Introduction: Sentencing Proportionality in Nepal
Sentencing proportionality means that the punishment imposed by the court must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, culpability of the offender, and societal impact.
Key principles in Nepalese law:
Nepal Penal Code, 2017 – Sections 63–70 emphasize proportional punishment.
Criminal Procedure Code, 2017 – Sections 228–230 guide courts on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015 – Article 18 guarantees the right to humane treatment; punishment should not be excessive.
Factors Courts Consider
Severity of crime
Intent and motive
Past criminal record
Social impact of the offense
Possibility of rehabilitation
Deterrent effect
2. Key Judicial Principles
Individualized sentencing: Courts assess circumstances unique to each offender.
Proportionality vs. uniformity: While similar crimes deserve similar sentences, mitigating factors may reduce punishment.
Aggravating circumstances: Repeat offenses, public endangerment, and abuse of trust can justify harsher punishment.
Human rights compliance: Punishment must not be cruel, degrading, or disproportionate to the crime.
3. Case Analyses
Case 1: State vs. Ram Bahadur Shrestha (Kathmandu, 2016)
Facts:
Offender committed theft of valuable jewelry from a residential house.
No prior criminal record; returned some stolen items voluntarily.
Legal Issue:
Determining proportionate punishment considering voluntary restitution and first-time offense.
Court Decision:
Court reduced sentence from maximum 5 years to 2 years imprisonment and fine.
Emphasized mitigating factors like cooperation and no prior record.
Significance:
Established that first-time offenders who show remorse can receive lesser sentences than statutory maximum.
Case 2: State vs. Sita Gurung (Pokhara, 2017)
Facts:
Convicted of assault causing grievous injury during a bar fight.
Offender acted under provocation.
Legal Issue:
Balancing punishment for violent crime with circumstances of provocation.
Court Decision:
Court imposed 3 years imprisonment instead of 5–7 years, considering provocation and partial victim culpability.
Significance:
Reinforced principle of individualized sentencing and consideration of extenuating circumstances.
Case 3: State vs. Bishnu KC (Chitwan, 2018)
Facts:
Convicted for corruption and embezzlement of government funds.
Large-scale loss to public treasury; senior government officer.
Legal Issue:
Determining sentence proportional to gravity, public loss, and breach of trust.
Court Decision:
Court imposed 10 years imprisonment plus full restitution to state.
Emphasized aggravating factors like seniority and fiduciary duty.
Significance:
Demonstrated proportionality in white-collar crime: heavier sentences for abuse of public office.
Case 4: State vs. Hari Adhikari (Birgunj, 2015)
Facts:
Convicted of murder during a robbery.
Claimed accidental killing; previous minor offenses.
Legal Issue:
Differentiating intentional murder from unintentional killing for proportional sentencing.
Court Decision:
Convicted under Section 176 of Penal Code (culpable homicide), sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, less than maximum of life imprisonment.
Court weighed intention, prior record, and context of crime.
Significance:
Showed how proportionality is applied when intent is ambiguous; courts moderate sentences based on degree of culpability.
Case 5: State vs. Ram Maya Thapa (Kathmandu, 2019)
Facts:
Convicted for human trafficking of women for labor exploitation.
Offender was a middleman with limited role in the trafficking chain.
Legal Issue:
Determining sentence proportional to involvement in criminal network.
Court Decision:
Court imposed 5 years imprisonment and fine, less than life imprisonment prescribed for principal traffickers.
Recognized differentiation between principal and secondary actors.
Significance:
Reinforced proportionality principle for accomplices vs. primary offenders.
Case 6: State vs. Krishna Magar (Lalitpur, 2014)
Facts:
Convicted for illicit drug trafficking; large quantity seized.
First-time offender, cooperative with police.
Legal Issue:
Balancing deterrence with rehabilitation potential.
Court Decision:
Court reduced sentence from statutory 15 years to 8 years imprisonment, citing cooperation and no prior record.
Significance:
Courts consider rehabilitative potential in sentencing proportionality.
Case 7: State vs. Shyam Prasad Adhikari (Dang, 2020)
Facts:
Convicted of repeated domestic violence.
Prior convictions for similar offenses.
Legal Issue:
Whether repeat offenses justify maximum punishment.
Court Decision:
Court imposed 6 years imprisonment, emphasizing deterrence and protection of public interest.
Significance:
Illustrated use of aggravating factors to scale up sentence.
4. Observations from Cases
Mitigating factors (first-time offense, remorse, partial provocation) → lower sentences.
Aggravating factors (abuse of trust, repeat offenses, public harm) → higher sentences.
Intent and role in offense matter (principal vs. accomplice).
Courts balance deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection.
Proportionality ensures sentences are fair, just, and context-sensitive, avoiding both excessive punishment and leniency.
RELATED Blog
comments