Use Of Technology And Electronic Evidence In Criminal Trials In Nepal

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction: Technology and Electronic Evidence in Nepal

With the advancement of digital technology, electronic evidence has become a crucial component in criminal investigations and trials. This includes:

Digital communications (emails, social media messages)

Mobile phone records and call logs

CCTV footage and surveillance recordings

Computer and internet activity

Bank and financial transactions

a. Legal Framework

Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006)

Recognizes electronic records, digital signatures, and electronic communications as legally valid evidence.

Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (2017)

Provides procedural rules for collection, preservation, and admissibility of electronic evidence.

Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)

Penalizes cybercrime, fraud, and offenses facilitated by electronic means.

Supreme Court Judgments

Play a crucial role in interpreting how electronic evidence should be admitted and evaluated.

b. Importance of Electronic Evidence

Ensures accuracy and speed in investigations

Helps trace cybercrime, fraud, and corruption

Increases transparency and accountability

Protects against false accusations if properly authenticated

2. Key Legal Principles for Electronic Evidence

Authenticity: Must prove the electronic record is genuine and not tampered with.

Integrity: Evidence should be maintained in original form with proper chain of custody.

Relevance: Must directly relate to the facts of the case.

Admissibility: Courts evaluate whether the evidence complies with laws and rules of procedure.

Expert Verification: Often requires technical experts to validate the evidence.

3. Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Electronic Evidence

Here are six notable cases showing how Nepalese courts deal with electronic evidence:

Case 1: Ram Prasad Adhikari v. State (NKP 2065, Decision No. 9001)

Facts:
The accused was charged with cyber fraud using social media and emails. Key evidence included email records and screenshots of online transactions.

Judgment:

Court accepted email records and screenshots as evidence after expert verification.

Emphasized that digital evidence must be authenticated and its integrity maintained.

Significance:

Established authentication standards for electronic evidence in criminal trials.

Set a precedent for using emails and online communication as admissible evidence.

Case 2: Sita Shrestha v. District Court, Kathmandu (NKP 2067, Decision No. 9234)

Facts:
CCTV footage was submitted in a theft case showing the accused at the crime scene.

Judgment:

Court ruled that CCTV footage is admissible if unaltered and properly preserved.

Court instructed that a technical expert should testify about the authenticity of the video.

Significance:

Clarified standards for video evidence and expert verification in criminal cases.

Reinforced the principle that electronic evidence must not be manipulated.

Case 3: Hari Bahadur KC v. State (NKP 2070, Decision No. 9512)

Facts:
The accused allegedly conducted financial fraud using online banking systems. Bank transaction records and digital logs were submitted as evidence.

Judgment:

Court recognized digital banking records as valid evidence if obtained from official sources.

Directed the court to cross-check records with bank officials to ensure accuracy.

Significance:

Established admissibility of financial digital records in criminal proceedings.

Highlighted the role of banks and institutions in maintaining electronic evidence.

Case 4: Ramesh Kumar Thapa v. Public Prosecutor (NKP 2071, Decision No. 9721)

Facts:
The accused was charged with online defamation and harassment through social media. Evidence included Facebook and Messenger chats.

Judgment:

Court allowed social media messages as evidence after verifying accounts and metadata.

Emphasized the importance of maintaining chain of custody to prevent tampering.

Significance:

Recognized social media communications as legitimate evidence in criminal trials.

Highlighted challenges in tracing digital accounts to individuals.

Case 5: Manju Lama v. State (NKP 2072, Decision No. 9830)

Facts:
A cyber harassment case involved emails and mobile phone messages threatening the victim.

Judgment:

Court admitted mobile messages and email headers as evidence after authentication.

Court noted that forensic experts should document metadata and IP addresses.

Significance:

Strengthened procedures for forensic analysis of mobile and electronic evidence.

Emphasized technical expertise in verifying digital evidence.

Case 6: Bishnu Prasad Adhikari v. Kathmandu District Court (NKP 2073, Decision No. 9892)

Facts:
The accused used encrypted messaging apps to coordinate a robbery. Law enforcement retrieved chat logs and GPS data from smartphones.

Judgment:

Court held that encrypted communication records are admissible if decrypted by authorized forensic experts.

Emphasized that law enforcement must follow proper legal procedures when obtaining electronic evidence.

Significance:

Clarified admissibility of encrypted digital evidence.

Highlighted need for legal compliance in digital evidence collection.

4. Key Observations from Case Law

Authentication is critical: Courts require proof that electronic evidence is genuine.

Expert verification is often required: Technical experts validate emails, messages, CCTV footage, and bank records.

Chain of custody matters: Evidence must be preserved without alteration.

Digital evidence is treated equally with physical evidence if legal standards are met.

Procedural compliance by law enforcement is essential for admissibility.

Integration of new technology: Courts are adapting to emerging evidence types like encrypted apps, cloud storage, and social media.

5. Challenges in Admitting Electronic Evidence in Nepal

Lack of technical expertise among judges and lawyers.

Risks of tampering, deletion, or alteration of digital records.

Rapidly changing technology makes legal standards hard to update.

Privacy and encryption laws can complicate access to evidence.

Limited forensic laboratories and digital evidence analysis capabilities.

6. Conclusion

Supreme Court jurisprudence in Nepal demonstrates that electronic evidence is increasingly central to criminal trials, provided that it meets standards of authenticity, integrity, relevance, and procedural compliance. Courts have emphasized expert verification, chain of custody, and legal compliance to maintain fairness and reliability.

Electronic evidence has now become on par with physical evidence, especially in cases involving cybercrime, fraud, defamation, and surveillance.

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year (BS)	Type of Electronic Evidence	Court Decision / Significance
Ram Prasad Adhikari	2065	Emails & screenshots	Authentication & admissibility established
Sita Shrestha	2067	CCTV footage	Expert verification required
Hari Bahadur KC	2070	Online banking records	Digital financial records admissible
Ramesh Kumar Thapa	2071	Social media chats	Chain of custody & account verification emphasized
Manju Lama	2072	Emails & mobile messages	Forensic metadata verification required
Bishnu Prasad Adhikari	2073	Encrypted messaging & GPS	Authorized decryption & procedural compliance necessary