Research On Street Crime And Penal Responses In Nepal
Legal Framework – Street Crime and Penal Responses in Nepal
Street crimes—such as theft, robbery, pickpocketing, burglary, assaults in public spaces—are addressed under the National Penal Code, 2074 (Nepal) (also known as the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074) and related statutes. Some of the key provisions:
Section 241 defines theft (dishonest taking of someone else’s property without consent).
Section 242 prescribes punishment for theft under aggravating circumstances (government property, vulnerable victim, disaster situation etc.).
Section 243 defines burglary (entering by unauthorized access to commit theft).
Section 244 defines robbery (theft involving force, intimidation, weapon, or vulnerable location such as roads, isolated place).
Section 246 deals with pickpocketing (stealing from pocket, purse or while in public transit or vehicle).
Penalties are calibrated: theft generally carries lower punishments; robbery (with violence or weapon) far higher. For example:
Under Section 244, if robbery involves causing or attempting harm, using weapons or occurs on isolated roads, the punishment is imprisonment 7–14 years and fine NPR 70,000‑140,000.
For less aggravated robbery (road/isolated etc) imprisonment 5–10 years and fine NPR 50,000‑100,000.
Pickpocketing (Section 246) has lighter penalties—often up to 1‑2 months if value small, though higher if value large or repeated.
Other legal tools: victims’ rights provisions (under Criminal Procedure Code), police powers of investigation, and fines/compensation provisions.
Thus, street crime in Nepal is criminalised and the penal response is significant—particularly when violence or weapons are involved.
Case Studies
Here are five substantial cases illustrating how the law is applied in practice in Nepal’s street crime context.
Case 1: “Sita Rai Robbery” (Tribhuvan Airport)
Facts: A woman (Sita Rai) returning from abroad was robbed inside the airport area in 2012. Staff of the airport and police constable conspired, detained her, looted money and belongings, and committed additional offences.
Legal Response: The Special Court convicted four persons: airport staff and a police constable. They were given jail terms of four months each and fined NPR 69,000 each.
Significance: Though not a classic street robbery (it occurred in airport premises), the case underscores how robbery law (force/intimidation + theft) is applied, and shows the overlap of public space, authority misuse, and theft/robbery. Also highlights that even those in authority may be prosecuted when engaging in such crimes.
Case 2: Six‑Person Robbery Gang in Kathmandu (2020)
Facts: A gang of six robbed a 63‑year‑old man in Kathmandu of about NPR 5 million. They lured him under false pretext, threatened him with weapons (khukuri, iron rod), and took the money. Police later arrested the six and recovered about NPR 1.8 million.
Legal Response: The case was registered under robbery/armed robbery provisions (force + threat + large amount). Investigation by Metropolitan Crime Division. The preliminary press‐report indicates serious penal exposure (robbery with weapons).
Significance: Classic street/urban robbery: violent, large scale, targeted. Demonstrates the high value of penalty when weapons/threats used, and shows active police investigation. Though final sentence details aren’t publicly prominent, this case illustrates the risk of long imprisonment (5‑14 years) under Section 244 for robbery with violence.
Case 3: Jewellery Factory Robbery in Kathmandu (2022)
Facts: A gang disguised as police, robbed a jewellery factory in central Kathmandu (Nardevi), obtaining gold. They used weapon, uniforms, had tools and bullets.
Legal Response: Police arrested six suspects. Investigation under Section 20 of the Criminal Code (offences relating to serious crime) and robbery provisions.
Significance: Though industrial rather than street‐corner, this still qualifies as street crime (robbery in public/urban setting). Key points: impersonation of police, use of weapon, high value theft. Shows how burglary/robbery legislation is applied to more organised street crime. Also reinforces that value of property and presence of weapon/impersonation aggravates penalties.
Case 4: Pickpocketing and Bulk Arrests in Kathmandu (2021)
Facts: As part of a campaign ahead of festivals, police in Kathmandu Valley arrested 207 persons suspected of burglary/pickpocket offences in buses, markets and vehicles. 161 investigations initiated.
Legal Response: Many arrested for theft/pickpocketing (Sections 241/246). Value often less high but large numbers.
Significance: Demonstrates law in action for more “ordinary” street crimes – theft, pickpocketing – not only high value robbery. Shows that the state uses preventive campaigns and mass arrests to combat street crime in public transport/market environments. Penalties in such cases will likely be lower (theft rather than armed robbery) but still carry criminal record, imprisonment and fine.
Case 5: Robbery by Police Officials (2023)
Facts: A robbery case in Kathmandu where three police personnel (Assistant Sub Inspector, etc) along with civilians robbed a man of about NPR 47,500 and demanded money after detaining him at night. Vehicle confiscated, evidence filed.
Legal Response: The District Court case includes charges of robbery, implicating police officials as perpetrators.
Significance: Important because it shows street crime by state actors (police) and how the law treats them as offenders of street crime. It signals accountability also for public officials under robbery laws. It underlines that robbery includes situations of force/intimidation by persons in uniform, which is aggravating.
Case 6: Robbery near Koteshwor (2025)
Facts: Nine people (including one Indian national) arrested for robbery of a supermarket (Bhat Bhateni, Koteshwor, Kathmandu). Robbery followed vandalism during a protest, targeted retail premises.
Legal Response: Arrests, investigation for robbery/looting.
Significance: This again is street crime (robbery/looting) triggered in a public protest context. It shows the confluence of communal disorder and street crime, and how robbery laws apply even when crimes occur amidst public disturbances.
Key Observations & Patterns
Severity of offence matters: Crimes involving force, weapons, intimidation (robbery) attract much higher penalties (5‑14 years) compared to theft or pickpocketing (which might carry imprisonment up to 3 years or fines).
Public/road/isolated place aggravates liability: Section 244 specifically mentions robbery “on a way, road, lonely place or forest” with intimidation = higher sentence bracket. Street crimes often involve these settings.
Value of stolen property matters: High‐value theft/robbery more likely to provoke prosecution under robbery provisions rather than simple theft.
Use of weapon/force significantly aggravates the categorisation from theft to robbery and thus higher penal response.
Organised gangs and multiple perpetrators lead to more serious classification (robbery by group).
Pickpocketing and minor theft still punishable, but often lesser penalties; however repeated offences escalate.
Law enforcement campaigns (e.g., arrests of many burglars/pickpockets) show state response focusing on street crime hotspots such as buses, markets, festivals.
State actors (police/officers) found committing street crime attract legal response, showing that the rule of law applies to all.
Implications for Practice & Policy
Victims of street crime (theft, robbery) have legal recourse under the Penal Code; they can file FIRs, seek investigation.
Street criminals should recognise they face serious jail sentences especially where violence/weapon used.
Prevention campaigns (e.g., at festivals, transport hubs) are critical; evidence of many arrests shows police are responsive.
Policy wise: matters such as better street lighting, CCTV in markets, plain‐clothes policing in public transport help reduce street crime.
For legal practitioners: distinguishing between theft vs burglary vs robbery is crucial—because sentencing difference is large. Also, value of goods, weapon involvement, location matter heavily.
Victim rights are increasingly codified (e.g., the “Rights of crime victims” article shows Nepal law affirms victim’s rights to be informed, participate, receive compensation) which is important for street crime cases too.
Conclusion
Street crime in Nepal is robustly addressed in the National Penal Code. The law draws clear distinctions between theft, burglary, pickpocketing and robbery. The sample cases above illustrate how courts and police apply the law in real life—whether it is pickpocketing in a bus, a gang robbing a man of millions, or police officers themselves committing robbery. The penalties vary widely, but the message is clear: street crime involving force, weapons or organised gang activity is treated seriously and punished heavily.
RELATED Blog
comments