Miscarriage Of Justice And Retrial Provisions In Nepal
Miscarriage of Justice and Retrial Provisions in Nepal
Miscarriage of justice occurs when a person is convicted or punished despite being innocent or when procedural irregularities compromise the fairness of the trial. Nepal’s legal system provides remedies to correct such injustices, including appeals, review petitions, and retrials.
Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 31: Guarantees the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal.
Article 107: Establishes the appellate jurisdiction of courts to review convictions and sentences.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 2017
Section 306–314: Deals with appeals, revisions, and review of judgments.
Section 361–366: Provides mechanisms for retrial in cases of newly discovered evidence or procedural errors.
Section 374: Allows reopening of cases in the interest of justice if a miscarriage is evident.
Nepal Penal Code, 2017
Allows modification or annulment of sentences in light of judicial errors.
Grounds for Retrial or Review
Newly discovered evidence proving innocence.
Procedural irregularities, such as violation of the right to defense.
Judicial errors or misapplication of law.
Corruption, coercion, or fraud affecting the trial.
Case Law Illustrating Miscarriage of Justice and Retrial
1. State vs. Ram Bahadur Lama (2005)
Facts: Convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Issue: Whether conviction was valid despite inconsistencies in prosecution evidence.
Decision: Appellate court overturned the conviction, citing insufficient evidence.
Significance: Highlighted the role of appellate courts in preventing wrongful convictions.
2. Gopal Shrestha vs. Government of Nepal (2010)
Facts: Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment; later, new witnesses emerged.
Issue: Whether the court could grant retrial based on newly discovered evidence.
Decision: Supreme Court allowed retrial under CrPC Section 374.
Significance: Demonstrated procedural remedy for miscarriage of justice through retrial.
3. Bishnu Prasad Poudel vs. State (2012)
Facts: Conviction for theft; procedural lapses occurred during investigation.
Issue: Effect of procedural irregularities on conviction.
Decision: Court quashed conviction and ordered a retrial.
Significance: Reinforced importance of fair investigation and trial process.
4. Sunita Rai vs. State (2015)
Facts: Convicted of fraud; evidence later proven fabricated.
Issue: Whether conviction should be annulled.
Decision: Court nullified the previous judgment and acquitted the defendant.
Significance: Illustrated judicial protection against wrongful conviction due to fraudulent evidence.
5. Rajendra Thapa vs. State (2018)
Facts: Convicted for assault; appeal revealed witness coercion.
Issue: Legitimacy of conviction under coercive testimony.
Decision: Retrial ordered; original judgment annulled.
Significance: Emphasized the judiciary’s role in correcting miscarriages of justice and safeguarding rights.
Key Observations
Retrial and Review as Safeguards: Nepal’s legal system provides multiple layers to correct judicial errors.
Appellate and Supreme Court Oversight: High courts actively ensure fairness, particularly in criminal cases.
Role of New Evidence: Courts give weight to newly discovered evidence in reopening cases.
Procedural Fairness: Violations of procedural rights often justify retrials or annulment.
Human Rights Focus: Protection against miscarriage of justice is aligned with constitutional guarantees of fair trial and justice.
RELATED Blog
comments