Prosecution Of Cyber Pornography And Online Child Abuse In Nepal
🧩 1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Cyber pornography and online child abuse are prosecuted under several Nepalese laws, mainly:
Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (ETA), 2008
Section 47: Prohibits publication or display of any material in electronic form that is contrary to public morality or decent behavior, or that may spread hatred or disturb harmony.
Punishment: Up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine up to Rs. 100,000, or both.
Children’s Act, 2075 (2018)
Section 66–70: Prohibits sexual exploitation, abuse, or involvement of children in pornographic materials.
Punishment: Up to 14 years’ imprisonment, depending on severity.
Criminal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
Sections 224–228: Cover sexual offenses, child sexual abuse, and exploitation.
Section 228: Criminalizes the use of children in pornographic content.
National Penal (Code) Act and National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act
Provide the procedural framework for investigation, evidence collection, and prosecution.
Cyber Bureau of Nepal Police
Investigates online crimes including pornography, sextortion, and online child sexual exploitation (OCSE).
⚖️ Prosecution Challenges
Lack of specialized cyber forensic expertise.
Difficulty in tracing foreign-based servers or websites.
Victims’ reluctance to report due to social stigma.
Limited digital evidence preservation tools.
Despite these challenges, several notable cases have been successfully prosecuted in Nepal.
🧾 MAJOR CASES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Case 1: Public Prosecutor v. Rajan Shrestha (2011)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts:
The accused, Rajan Shrestha, was charged under Section 47 of the ETA 2008 for uploading pornographic images and videos on a Nepali forum website and selling access through paid membership. The materials involved explicit sexual content violating public decency.
Issue:
Whether the accused’s online publication of sexually explicit material constitutes an offense under the ETA.
Judgment:
The court held that distributing or displaying obscene materials online clearly violates Section 47. The accused was convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000.
Significance:
This was one of the first prosecutions of online pornography under the ETA in Nepal, setting a precedent for later cyber cases.
Case 2: Public Prosecutor v. Anil Gurung (2015)
Court: Lalitpur District Court
Facts:
Anil Gurung recorded intimate videos of his girlfriend without her consent and later uploaded them to a pornographic site after their breakup.
Legal Provisions:
ETA, Section 47 (publication of obscene content)
Criminal Code Section 228 (use of another person’s image without consent)
Judgment:
The court found the accused guilty of both cyber and sexual offenses. He was sentenced to three years in prison and fined Rs. 75,000.
Significance:
The case established that non-consensual distribution of intimate images (“revenge porn”) is prosecutable as both cyber pornography and sexual exploitation under Nepali law.
Case 3: State of Nepal v. Prakash Thapa & Others (2018)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts:
A group of individuals was running an online operation involving trafficking of young girls by luring them into modeling jobs, then producing pornographic videos later sold online to foreign clients.
Charges:
Children’s Act, Section 66 (child exploitation)
ETA, Section 47 (obscene publication)
Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act, 2064
Judgment:
The court found the defendants guilty and sentenced the main accused to 14 years imprisonment under the Children’s Act, with additional penalties under the ETA.
Significance:
This case was a landmark in linking cyber pornography to human trafficking, recognizing that online abuse and exploitation can constitute trafficking.
Case 4: Nepal Police Cyber Bureau v. Santosh Koirala (2020)
Facts:
The accused operated several fake Facebook and Instagram profiles, using them to approach minors and solicit sexual photos. He then used these photos for blackmail (sextortion).
Legal Provisions:
Children’s Act, 2018 (Section 70)
ETA, 2008 (Section 47)
Criminal Code (Section 228)
Judgment:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, plus compensation of Rs. 200,000 to the victims.
Significance:
This case was one of the first where cyber grooming and sextortion were prosecuted as child sexual abuse, not merely as an online offense.
Case 5: Public Prosecutor v. Ramesh Chaudhary (2022)
Court: Kanchanpur District Court
Facts:
The accused circulated a video of a minor girl through TikTok and Telegram groups. He also edited and shared the material to multiple users for money.
Provisions:
Children’s Act, Section 66–70
ETA, Section 47
Criminal Code, Section 228
Judgment:
The court sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 150,000, emphasizing that digital sharing of child pornography is equivalent to physical production and dissemination.
Significance:
This case reinforced zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation online and strengthened police capacity for digital evidence tracing and forensic validation.
🔍 Summary of Key Learnings
| Case | Year | Key Offense | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajan Shrestha | 2011 | Online porn publication | Convicted (2 yrs) | First cyberporn conviction under ETA |
| Anil Gurung | 2015 | Revenge porn | Convicted (3 yrs) | Recognized non-consensual media as cybercrime |
| Prakash Thapa | 2018 | Child trafficking via porn | Convicted (14 yrs) | Linked online porn to human trafficking |
| Santosh Koirala | 2020 | Online child grooming | Convicted (8 yrs) | First “sextortion” prosecution |
| Ramesh Chaudhary | 2022 | Child porn via TikTok | Convicted (12 yrs) | Established online distribution = physical production |
⚖️ Conclusion
Nepal’s judiciary and law enforcement have evolved significantly in tackling cyber pornography and online child abuse. The Electronic Transactions Act (2008) remains the backbone of prosecution, but modern cases increasingly invoke Children’s Act 2018 and Criminal Code 2017 for stronger penalties.
While prosecution faces technical and jurisdictional hurdles, the courts’ growing digital literacy and the Cyber Bureau’s proactive investigation are crucial in combating these offenses.
RELATED Blog
comments