Prosecution Of Police Officers For Extra-Judicial Killings
1. Case: Kumar Paudel (June 2019)
Facts:
Kumar Paudel, a political activist and leader of a banned group in Sarlahi District, was detained by police in June 2019. The police initially claimed that Paudel had tried to escape from custody, which led to a shootout in which he was killed. However, various sources, including the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), indicated that Paudel was likely killed after being taken into custody, and his death did not occur in a legitimate shootout.
Legal Issue:
The primary legal issue here was whether Paudel’s death was a murder by the police or a justified use of force under self-defense during an alleged escape attempt.
Prosecution Status:
The NHRC conducted an investigation and recommended that criminal charges be filed against the officers involved, including Inspector Krishnadev Prasad Sah and Senior Constables Binod Sah and Satya Narayan Mishra. In 2021, after considerable pressure, police registered a formal complaint against the officers involved in the case. However, prosecution has been delayed, and the investigation remains pending. Despite the NHRC’s findings, the slow pace of justice has been widely criticized.
Significance:
This case highlights the issues with accountability in law enforcement and the difficulty of prosecuting police officers when they are accused of extra-judicial killings. The delay in formal charges against the officers reflects broader systemic challenges in prosecuting law enforcement personnel.
2. Case: Bijay Mahara (August 2020)
Facts:
Bijay Mahara, a 19-year-old Dalit man from Rautahat, was arrested by the police on 16 August 2020 for allegedly being involved in a robbery. While in police custody, Mahara allegedly suffered physical abuse and torture. He was later found dead, and the police initially claimed his death was due to kidney failure. However, a video that surfaced from Mahara’s last moments showed him claiming that he had been tortured by the police.
Legal Issue:
The central issue was whether the death was due to torture while in police custody, which would make the killing extra-judicial, or whether it was a natural death caused by pre-existing conditions.
Prosecution Status:
The NHRC conducted an investigation and found that Mahara had been subjected to torture and abuse. In response to public outrage, an FIR was registered against six police personnel, including the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). The prosecution was expected to proceed, but investigations have been slow, and as of the latest available reports, no convictions have been made. Despite the clear indications of unlawful actions, accountability remains elusive.
Significance:
This case exemplifies the systemic problem of torture and abuse in police custody, especially against marginalized groups, such as Dalits. The prosecution delays demonstrate the challenges of holding law enforcement accountable, particularly in cases involving allegations of custodial death.
3. Case: Saroj Narayan Singh (January 2019)
Facts:
Saroj Narayan Singh, a young man from the Madhesi community, was killed by police in Rautahat District during a protest over illegal sand mining. Singh was shot dead by the police while participating in a demonstration. The police claimed that they opened fire in self-defense when the protesters became violent. However, there was no evidence to suggest that Singh was involved in any violent activities during the protest.
Legal Issue:
The key issue in this case was whether the use of lethal force by the police was disproportionate and whether Singh's death was an extra-judicial killing.
Prosecution Status:
Despite the fact that the NHRC recommended criminal charges against the police officers involved, the case faced delays in registration of the FIR. The officers involved were not held accountable, and there were attempts to settle the case informally with Singh’s family rather than through legal proceedings. The case is still pending, and there has been no public report of criminal prosecution of the police officers.
Significance:
This case highlights the problem of excessive use of force by police during crowd control and protests. It also underscores the impunity often enjoyed by police officers, especially in cases involving marginalized groups, such as the Madhesi community.
4. Case: Gopal Tamang and Ajay Tamang (August 2018)
Facts:
In August 2018, Gopal Tamang and Ajay Tamang, two young men, were detained by the police in Bhaktapur District. They were taken into custody under suspicious circumstances and later found dead in a forest. The police initially claimed that the two had died in an encounter while trying to escape, but investigations revealed that they had been tortured and killed by the police after their arrest.
Legal Issue:
The legal issue revolved around whether their deaths were a result of torture and extra-judicial killing by police officers, or whether the deaths occurred as a result of legitimate police action.
Prosecution Status:
The NHRC conducted an investigation and concluded that the deaths were extra-judicial killings. It recommended the prosecution of DSP Rugam Bahadur Kunwar and several other officers involved in the case. Despite this, the legal process has been slow, and as of the last update, no meaningful criminal convictions have been made, although charges have been filed. The case continues to linger without closure.
Significance:
This case exemplifies the frequent use of "encounter" killings to justify police actions, and the difficulty of prosecuting high-ranking officers. It highlights the persistent issue of police impunity in Nepal, where even when a death is clearly extra-judicial, accountability remains rare.
5. Case: Sunil Kumar Yadav (April 2020)
Facts:
Sunil Kumar Yadav was arrested by police officers in the Terai region of Nepal for alleged involvement in a crime syndicate. He was reportedly taken into custody and, within a few hours, his body was found in a remote area. The police initially claimed that he had died in an attempted escape while in their custody, but independent investigations suggested that he was killed in an extra-judicial manner.
Legal Issue:
The primary legal question was whether the police had used unlawful force in detaining Yadav, leading to his death, or whether his death occurred during an attempted escape, as the police had claimed.
Prosecution Status:
The NHRC issued a recommendation for a thorough investigation, but as in many similar cases, the investigation process has been slow. The police officers involved were not immediately charged with criminal offenses, and the case has yet to see significant progress in the legal system.
Significance:
This case again highlights the difficulties in holding police officers accountable for extra-judicial killings, particularly when police are allowed to investigate their own actions. It also underscores the lack of independent mechanisms to ensure impartial investigations into police conduct.
Legal Framework & Challenges
The Penal Code 2017 of Nepal criminalizes murder, homicide, and custodial deaths. Under Section 12 of the Penal Code, law enforcement officers can be prosecuted for murder or culpable homicide if they engage in extra-judicial killings. However, the prosecution process often faces barriers such as:
Internal conflicts of interest: Police forces investigating themselves create a conflict of interest and undermine impartiality.
Delays and underreporting: Many cases of extra-judicial killings are not promptly reported or investigated. FIRs are sometimes delayed, and evidence is tampered with or lost.
Impunity: Even when investigations occur, punishment is rare. Officers involved in extra-judicial killings often enjoy legal immunity or face minimal consequences due to political connections or institutional support.
Conclusion
The prosecution of police officers for extra-judicial killings in Nepal remains a significant challenge. While there are legal provisions that criminalize unlawful killings by police, accountability is often not enforced. In cases like those of Kumar Paudel, Bijay Mahara, and Gopal Tamang, even when the NHRC finds clear evidence of misconduct, slow investigations and institutional obstacles prevent effective prosecution. The systemic impunity enjoyed by many officers remains a key issue in efforts to ensure justice for victims of extra-judicial killings in Nepal.
RELATED Blog
comments