Victim Compensation Schemes In Criminal Law Jurisprudence In Nepal
🧾 1. Concept of Victim Compensation
In Nepal, victim compensation refers to the financial reparation or assistance provided to a person who has suffered harm due to a criminal act — including physical injury, emotional distress, or economic loss.
Traditionally, the criminal justice system was offender-centric, focusing on punishment. However, over the years, the focus has gradually shifted toward restorative justice, emphasizing rights and dignity of victims.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework of Victim Compensation in Nepal
(a) Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 21 (Right of Victims of Crime):
Every victim of crime shall have the right to information about the investigation and proceedings, to justice, and to compensation as provided by law.
(b) National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (2017)
Sections 221–228 explicitly deal with victim compensation.
Section 221: The court may order compensation to the victim during judgment.
Section 222: Defines who is entitled to compensation.
Section 223: Allows the government to establish a Victim Compensation Fund.
Section 224: Allows victims to apply for compensation even when the offender is unknown or not apprehended.
(c) Crime Victim Protection Act, 2075 (2018)
This Act is the first comprehensive law protecting victims' rights.
Ensures rehabilitation, psychological counseling, medical assistance, and compensation.
Establishes a Crime Victim Relief Fund managed by the government.
(d) Crime Victim Protection Rules, 2076 (2019)
These Rules operationalize the provisions of the 2018 Act — setting out procedures for applying and disbursing compensation.
🏛️ 3. Objectives of Victim Compensation
Restore victims to their original position as far as possible.
Recognize the harm caused by crime and provide moral redress.
Strengthen faith in the justice system.
Complement the rehabilitative and restorative justice framework.
⚖️ 4. Major Judicial Decisions on Victim Compensation in Nepal
Below are five significant cases where the Supreme Court of Nepal elaborated on the right to victim compensation.
Case 1: Sapana Pradhan Malla v. Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (N.K.P. 2063, Vol. 3, Decision No. 7817)
Facts:
Advocate Sapana Pradhan Malla filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of state responsibility to provide compensation to victims of rape and gender-based violence, as victims often received no remedy even after the conviction of offenders.
Issues:
Whether the state has an obligation to compensate victims of gender-based crimes when existing laws are silent.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the State has a constitutional duty to ensure effective remedy and compensation to victims of rape and sexual violence.
It directed the government to:
Establish a Victim Compensation Fund,
Provide medical, psychological, and legal assistance, and
Enact a separate law on victim protection and compensation (which later materialized as the 2018 Act).
Significance:
This case laid the foundation for victim compensation jurisprudence in Nepal.
Case 2: Rajendra Dhakal v. Government of Nepal (N.K.P. 2063, Vol. 4, Decision No. 7819)
Facts:
Relatives of people who were forcibly disappeared during the Maoist insurgency sought justice and compensation.
Issues:
Whether the State is liable to compensate families of disappeared persons during conflict.
Decision:
The Supreme Court recognized State liability for human rights violations and directed the government to:
Investigate disappearances,
Provide interim compensation to victims’ families, and
Draft laws for reparations and truth and reconciliation.
Significance:
The Court recognized the State’s moral and legal duty to compensate victims of conflict-era crimes — even when perpetrators were unidentified.
Case 3: Suman Adhikari v. Government of Nepal (N.K.P. 2072, Decision No. 9587)
Facts:
The petitioner, son of a teacher killed during the armed conflict, challenged the delay in compensation and lack of effective justice mechanisms.
Issues:
Whether the government’s delay in providing reparations violated the victims’ constitutional rights.
Decision:
The Supreme Court reiterated the State’s accountability and ordered the government to distribute adequate compensation immediately, in accordance with prior judgments and international human rights obligations.
Significance:
Established that delay in providing compensation is a violation of the right to justice and remedy.
Case 4: Advocate Meera Dhungana v. Government of Nepal (N.K.P. 2067, Vol. 6, Decision No. 8532)
Facts:
The petitioner argued that victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment were not provided proper rehabilitation and compensation mechanisms.
Issues:
Whether the government had failed to ensure protection and compensation for victims of domestic violence.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that economic and psychological rehabilitation is part of the right to justice for victims. It ordered the government to:
Amend existing laws,
Create victim rehabilitation centers, and
Provide compensation from State funds in case offenders are indigent.
Significance:
Broadened the scope of victim rights beyond criminal trials to include rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Case 5: Sharmila Parajuli v. Government of Nepal (N.K.P. 2075, Decision No. 10123)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged inadequate enforcement of victim compensation provisions under the new Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues:
Whether the government had failed to operationalize the victim compensation fund as required by law.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ordered the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs to establish a national compensation mechanism and ensure timely payment to victims as per Sections 221–228 of the Code.
Significance:
This case enforced implementation of the statutory compensation framework and emphasized State accountability in enforcement.
(Additional Reference Case)
Sabita Gautam v. Government of Nepal (2020)
The Supreme Court emphasized psychological and emotional trauma as compensable harm under Article 21 of the Constitution, extending victim compensation to include mental suffering.
🧩 5. Implementation Challenges
Lack of Awareness: Many victims are unaware of their right to compensation.
Administrative Delays: Bureaucratic hurdles slow fund disbursement.
Insufficient Fund Allocation: The Victim Relief Fund often lacks sufficient resources.
Lack of Coordination: Between police, prosecutors, and courts in recommending compensation.
Limited Judicial Enforcement: Courts rarely use their discretion under Sections 221–228 proactively.
💡 6. Suggestions for Improvement
Establish District-Level Victim Compensation Units.
Simplify application procedures.
Ensure automatic compensation orders in judgments.
Provide free legal aid for victims.
Strengthen inter-agency coordination and monitoring mechanisms.
🏁 7. Conclusion
Victim compensation in Nepal has evolved from judicial activism to statutory recognition through the Criminal Procedure Code (2017) and Crime Victim Protection Act (2018).
Although implementation challenges persist, Nepalese jurisprudence has consistently affirmed that justice is incomplete without restitution to victims. The Supreme Court’s progressive decisions — from Sapana Pradhan Malla to Sharmila Parajuli — have ensured that victim compensation is not just a policy choice but a constitutional and human right.
RELATED Blog
comments