Prosecution Of Kidnapping For Ransom In Nepal
⚖️ 1. Legal Framework Governing Kidnapping for Ransom in Nepal
(a) Constitutional Context
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) under Article 17(1) guarantees every individual the right to life, liberty, and security. Any act of kidnapping or abduction directly violates these constitutional protections.
(b) Statutory Provisions
Kidnapping and abduction are criminalized under the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017).
Relevant Sections
Section 171: Defines Kidnapping or Abduction — taking, enticing, or detaining any person unlawfully by means of force, deceit, or coercion.
Section 172: Kidnapping for Ransom or Extortion — when the abduction is done with intent to demand money, property, or any other benefit for the release of the person.
Section 173: Punishment for causing death or serious injury to the kidnapped person.
Section 174: Punishment for attempt or conspiracy to kidnap.
Punishment
For Kidnapping for Ransom:
Imprisonment up to 20 years, and
Fine up to Rs. 200,000, or
Life imprisonment if the kidnapped person dies or sustains serious injury.
⚖️ 2. Elements of the Offence (Prosecution Must Prove)
To secure conviction, the prosecution must prove:
Actus Reus (Act): The accused abducted, confined, or detained the victim unlawfully.
Mens Rea (Intent): The accused intended to demand or obtain ransom or benefit.
Demand or Attempt: A demand for ransom (money or property) was made, even verbally or indirectly.
Identification & Evidence: Victim testimony, ransom calls, location tracking, and confessions.
⚖️ 3. Prosecution Process
Complaint/FIR: Filed by victim’s family or through police investigation.
Investigation: Police trace ransom calls, bank transactions, and collect electronic evidence.
Charge Sheet (Chalani): Filed by Government Attorney Office under Section 172.
Trial: Conducted in District Court, appealable to High Court, and ultimately to Supreme Court.
⚖️ 4. Major Judicial Decisions and Case Laws
Here are six landmark cases related to Kidnapping for Ransom in Nepal, with detailed explanations.
Case 1: Nepal Government v. Rajendra Shrestha (Supreme Court, 2058 BS)
Facts:
Rajendra Shrestha and others kidnapped a 14-year-old boy in Bhaktapur and demanded Rs. 500,000 from his parents. The child was rescued alive by police after three days.
Issue:
Whether the mere demand for money, even before receiving payment, constitutes “kidnapping for ransom.”
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the crime is complete when the demand for ransom is made, regardless of whether the ransom is actually paid. The intention to extort money by unlawful detention was clearly established.
Punishment:
Rajendra Shrestha was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and Rs. 100,000 fine.
Principle:
Demand for ransom itself completes the offence — actual payment is not necessary for conviction.
Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Suraj Thapa (Supreme Court, 2065 BS)
Facts:
Suraj Thapa, with accomplices, kidnapped a businessman from Pokhara, kept him in a rented house, and demanded Rs. 10 lakh for his release. The victim escaped after two days and informed police.
Issue:
Whether releasing the victim before ransom payment affects the liability for the offence.
Decision:
The Court ruled that voluntary release after the act does not reduce criminal liability. The offence of kidnapping for ransom is independent of whether the ransom was received or not.
Punishment:
Thapa was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment under Section 172.
Principle:
Subsequent release or non-payment of ransom does not mitigate the seriousness of the crime.
Case 3: Nepal Government v. Dinesh Pandey (Supreme Court, 2069 BS)
Facts:
Dinesh Pandey abducted a child from Chitwan and demanded ransom through a mobile phone. He argued that he only wanted to “teach a lesson” to the child’s parents due to a business dispute.
Issue:
Whether personal revenge disguised as a ransom case qualifies as “kidnapping for ransom.”
Decision:
The Court clarified that any abduction accompanied by a demand for money or benefit — even if motivated by revenge — falls under kidnapping for ransom.
Punishment:
20 years imprisonment and Rs. 200,000 fine.
Principle:
Motive (revenge or anger) is irrelevant; what matters is the demand for financial or material benefit.
Case 4: Nepal Government v. Bishnu Gurung (High Court Pokhara, 2073 BS)
Facts:
Bishnu Gurung kidnapped a foreign trekker in Mustang and demanded US $5,000 from his travel agency for release. The ransom was paid electronically and traced.
Issue:
Whether kidnapping a foreign national attracts enhanced punishment or special consideration.
Decision:
The High Court held that since the victim was a foreign citizen, the act damaged Nepal’s international reputation and thus warranted maximum sentence under the law.
Punishment:
Life imprisonment imposed due to the seriousness and international sensitivity of the case.
Principle:
Kidnapping foreigners or tourists constitutes an aggravated form of the offence and affects national dignity.
Case 5: Nepal Government v. Ramesh Bahadur BK (Supreme Court, 2075 BS)
Facts:
A schoolteacher was abducted by a local gang in Kailali who demanded ransom from his family. The victim was held for a week and physically assaulted.
Issue:
Whether physical assault during abduction increases the degree of punishment.
Decision:
The Court held that physical injury or torture during kidnapping qualifies as an aggravated offence under Section 173 of the Criminal Code.
Punishment:
Life imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Principle:
Physical injury or mental torture inflicted on the victim during abduction enhances the severity of punishment.
Case 6: Nepal Government v. Manoj Chaudhary and Others (Supreme Court, 2079 BS)
Facts:
Manoj Chaudhary and his gang kidnapped a 10-year-old child from Birgunj, demanded Rs. 2 million, and killed the victim when the family failed to pay. Police later recovered the body.
Issue:
Whether death of the kidnapped person automatically attracts life imprisonment or death penalty under Nepalese law.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that when the kidnapped person dies due to the act of the accused, it constitutes “Kidnapping with Murder”, punishable with life imprisonment. The court emphasized that life imprisonment is the maximum punishment under Nepalese law (as Nepal does not impose the death penalty).
Punishment:
All accused sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 compensation to the victim’s family.
Principle:
If death results from kidnapping for ransom, the maximum penalty (life imprisonment) must be imposed.
⚖️ 5. Key Judicial Principles Established
| Principle | Case Example | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Demand for ransom completes the offence | Rajendra Shrestha Case | Payment not necessary to prove guilt. |
| Release before ransom doesn’t absolve guilt | Suraj Thapa Case | Intention and demand are decisive. |
| Motive (revenge/personal dispute) irrelevant | Dinesh Pandey Case | Focus is on ransom demand. |
| Foreign victim = aggravated offence | Bishnu Gurung Case | National and international implications. |
| Physical harm aggravates punishment | Ramesh BK Case | Torture or injury raises sentence severity. |
| Death during abduction = life imprisonment | Manoj Chaudhary Case | Highest penalty under Nepali law. |
⚖️ 6. Conclusion
The prosecution of kidnapping for ransom in Nepal is treated as one of the gravest criminal offences, second only to homicide. Courts have emphasized:
The intention to demand ransom is the crucial element.
Even unsuccessful attempts or partial acts attract full criminal liability.
Victim safety and constitutional rights are paramount considerations.
The Supreme Court has maintained a strict stance, frequently upholding long prison terms and life sentences to deter such crimes.
Overall, Nepal’s judicial system considers kidnapping for ransom a crime against both the individual and the state, reflecting its commitment to upholding personal security and rule of law.
RELATED Blog
comments