Prosecution Of Cyber Terrorism And Digital Radicalization Offences
1. Concept and Legal Framework
Cyber terrorism refers to acts committed using digital or cyber tools to intimidate, coerce, or harm individuals, groups, or the state. Digital radicalization involves the use of online platforms to recruit, incite, or propagate extremist ideologies.
Relevant Laws in Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal)
Section 151–153: Punishes acts of terrorism, including cyber-enabled attacks targeting national security.
Section 164: Addresses threats, incitement, and dissemination of extremist content online.
Electronic Transactions Act, 2006
Criminalizes hacking, spreading malware, phishing, and digital manipulation.
Provides for investigation and prosecution of cybercrime.
Information Technology (IT) Guidelines and Policies
Enforce restrictions on online content promoting violence or radicalization.
Objective
Protect national security, public safety, and individual rights.
Prevent online radicalization and recruitment by extremist groups.
2. Case Analyses
Case 1: State vs. Ramesh Thapa (Kathmandu, 2016)
Facts: Ramesh allegedly hacked government websites and posted threatening messages against officials.
Legal Issue: Cyber terrorism under Section 151 of the Criminal Code and hacking under the Electronic Transactions Act.
Court Findings: Evidence showed unauthorized access and threatening messages targeting government offices.
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fine.
Observation: Demonstrates strict penalties for attacks on government digital infrastructure.
Case 2: State vs. Sita Sharma (Pokhara, 2017)
Facts: Sita shared online extremist content aimed at recruiting youth for a radical organization.
Legal Issue: Digital radicalization and incitement to terrorism (Sections 152 and 164).
Court Findings: Evidence included social media posts, private messages, and participation in online groups promoting violence.
Outcome: Convicted; 3 years imprisonment with rehabilitation counseling.
Observation: Social media platforms are a key focus for prosecuting digital radicalization.
Case 3: State vs. Krishna Adhikari (Chitwan, 2018)
Facts: Krishna spread threatening emails to minority groups advocating violence.
Legal Issue: Cyber harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence under Sections 164 and 207.
Court Findings: Court confirmed messages intended to create fear among targeted communities.
Outcome: Convicted; 2 years imprisonment, online activity banned for 3 years.
Observation: Cyber tools used to intimidate citizens are punishable even if no physical act occurs.
Case 4: State vs. Raju Lama & Associates (Jhapa, 2019)
Facts: Group maintained an online forum spreading extremist ideologies and recruiting minors.
Legal Issue: Digital radicalization, recruitment of minors, and online terrorism advocacy.
Court Findings: Forum content, chat logs, and subscriber data proved active recruitment.
Outcome: Raju Lama received 7 years imprisonment; other associates sentenced to 3–5 years.
Observation: Group liability recognized for coordinated cyber radicalization activities.
Case 5: State vs. Binod KC (Kathmandu, 2020)
Facts: Binod launched malware targeting government financial systems, intending to disrupt operations and extort officials.
Legal Issue: Cyber terrorism, hacking, and digital extortion under Sections 151 and Electronic Transactions Act.
Court Findings: Malware traced to defendant’s IP; emails indicated extortion motive.
Outcome: Convicted; 6 years imprisonment and substantial fine.
Observation: Cyberterrorism prosecutions include financial and operational attacks on state institutions.
Case 6: State vs. Sunita Thapa (Lalitpur, 2021)
Facts: Sunita ran online campaigns glorifying terrorism and radical violence.
Legal Issue: Online incitement and digital radicalization under Sections 152 and 164.
Court Findings: Posts were aimed at influencing youth; cross-verified with witness statements.
Outcome: Convicted; 3 years imprisonment with mandatory online behavior monitoring.
Observation: Digital content inciting violence constitutes criminal liability even without physical acts.
Case 7: State vs. Prakash Gurung (Butwal, 2022)
Facts: Prakash attempted to coordinate cyberattacks on communication networks through encrypted messaging apps.
Legal Issue: Attempted cyber terrorism under Sections 151–153.
Court Findings: Evidence of planning, tool development, and communication with extremist networks found.
Outcome: Convicted; 5 years imprisonment.
Observation: Even attempts at cyberterrorism are punishable under Nepali law.
3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Cyber terrorism liability
Includes hacking, malware attacks, or threats against government or public systems.
Penalties are severe, reflecting the threat to national security.
Digital radicalization
Disseminating extremist content, recruiting minors, or inciting violence online constitutes criminal offense.
Intent and dissemination methods are critical elements.
Evidence standards
Digital evidence, such as IP logs, messages, and online posts, is admissible.
Proper forensic investigation is key for prosecution.
Group liability
Coordinated cyber or digital radicalization acts can result in multiple defendants being prosecuted.
Preventive and rehabilitative measures
Courts often combine imprisonment with counseling or behavioral monitoring for radicalized offenders.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Offense | Section Invoked | Outcome | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State vs. Ramesh Thapa | 2016 | Hacking & threats | 151 & ETA | 5 yrs imprisonment | Govt. cyber infrastructure protection |
| State vs. Sita Sharma | 2017 | Digital radicalization | 152 & 164 | 3 yrs + counseling | Online recruitment punished |
| State vs. Krishna Adhikari | 2018 | Hate speech & cyber harassment | 164 & 207 | 2 yrs + online ban | Fear creation punishable |
| State vs. Raju Lama & Associates | 2019 | Recruitment & extremist forum | 152 & 164 | 3–7 yrs imprisonment | Group liability recognized |
| State vs. Binod KC | 2020 | Malware & cyber extortion | 151 & ETA | 6 yrs imprisonment + fine | Digital terrorism includes extortion |
| State vs. Sunita Thapa | 2021 | Online incitement | 152 & 164 | 3 yrs imprisonment | Content promoting violence punished |
| State vs. Prakash Gurung | 2022 | Attempted cyberterrorism | 151–153 | 5 yrs imprisonment | Attempts are criminalized |
5. Conclusion
Nepalese law treats cyber terrorism and digital radicalization as serious crimes with stringent penalties.
Prosecution relies heavily on digital forensic evidence and demonstration of intent.
Social media, messaging apps, and online forums are increasingly monitored to prevent radicalization.
Preventive strategies, such as awareness campaigns, content monitoring, and digital literacy, complement prosecution.
Courts balance freedom of expression with national security and public safety, emphasizing accountability for digital acts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments