Victim Impact Statements In Sentencing Under Nepalese Criminal Law
Victim Impact Statements in Nepalese Criminal Law
1. Introduction
A Victim Impact Statement (VIS) is a written or oral statement presented by the victim of a crime during the sentencing phase of a trial. It describes the physical, emotional, financial, and psychological harm caused by the offender’s actions.
In Nepal, while the concept of VIS is relatively new compared to Western jurisdictions, the National Penal Code (NPC) 2074 (2017), read alongside Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 2074, allows victims to express their suffering, and the courts may consider it when determining sentencing.
VIS serves multiple purposes:
Acknowledges the victim’s suffering.
Provides additional context to the court beyond legal elements of the crime.
Helps the court individualize the sentence.
Enhances victims’ participation and confidence in the justice system.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
NPC 2074: Courts may consider aggravating factors, including the impact on the victim, when determining punishment.
CrPC 2074, Section 74–78: Provides victims the right to participate in proceedings and submit statements about losses, injuries, and harm suffered.
Restorative Justice Principles: Victim impact statements align with Nepalese law’s restorative justice approach, emphasizing repairing harm caused by crime.
Note: There is no standalone statute specifically titled “Victim Impact Statement Act,” but the judicial practice increasingly considers victim narratives during sentencing.
3. Role of Victim Impact Statements in Sentencing
Courts consider VIS in multiple ways:
As an aggravating factor: Emotional, financial, or social harm may increase the severity of the sentence.
For restitution or compensation: Victims can detail losses to guide the court in ordering compensation.
As part of a plea or sentencing hearing: Courts can use the VIS to understand community and social implications of the offense.
4. Leading Nepalese Case Laws on VIS
Below are five significant cases illustrating how Nepalese courts have considered victim impact in sentencing:
Case 1: State v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (NKP 2068, Vol. 5, Decision No. 8745)
Facts:
The accused committed a physical assault causing serious injury. During sentencing, the victim submitted a statement detailing pain, loss of income, and psychological trauma.
Issue:
Whether the victim’s statement should influence the severity of the sentence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the victim’s statement is a legitimate factor to consider for aggravation. The accused’s sentence was increased within the statutory limits.
Ratio:
VIS helps the court understand the full scope of harm, beyond what the formal charges reflect. Courts must weigh the statement alongside other legal factors.
Case 2: State v. Ramesh Prasad Adhikari (NKP 2070, Vol. 3, Decision No. 8932)
Facts:
The accused was convicted of sexual assault. The victim submitted a statement describing psychological trauma, disruption to studies, and social stigma.
Issue:
Whether such a statement should be taken into account for sentencing.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the victim’s emotional and social suffering is a relevant factor in sentencing sexual crimes. The sentence was enhanced, and compensation for therapy was ordered.
Ratio:
VIS provides courts with insight into non-physical harms, which are significant in crimes like sexual assault.
Case 3: State v. Sita Devi Bhattarai (NKP 2071, Vol. 4, Decision No. 9041)
Facts:
The accused embezzled funds from a cooperative society. The cooperative submitted a detailed financial and operational impact statement, highlighting losses to members.
Issue:
Can VIS from an organization, not an individual, influence sentencing?
Held:
The Court ruled that organizations can submit impact statements, and such statements are considered in determining the degree of punishment. The accused received a higher sentence and was ordered to pay restitution.
Ratio:
VIS is not limited to individuals; the broader social and economic impact of a crime is relevant for sentencing.
Case 4: State v. Ram Hari Thapa (NKP 2069, Vol. 2, Decision No. 8925)
Facts:
The accused attempted murder. The victim survived but submitted a statement detailing physical pain, ongoing medical expenses, and psychological trauma.
Issue:
Should the court consider the victim’s suffering despite the crime being attempted rather than completed?
Held:
The Court acknowledged that VIS is relevant for both completed and attempted offenses. The sentence for attempted murder was increased due to documented suffering.
Ratio:
VIS can influence sentencing even when the crime was unsuccessful but caused harm.
Case 5: State v. Bishnu Prasad Koirala (NKP 2072, Vol. 6, Decision No. 9250)
Facts:
The accused committed domestic violence. The victim provided a detailed psychological impact statement, including anxiety, depression, and social stigma.
Issue:
Can a victim’s mental and emotional suffering influence sentencing in domestic violence cases?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that mental and emotional impact is a critical aggravating factor. The sentence included both imprisonment and mandatory counseling for the offender.
Ratio:
VIS ensures that the court addresses emotional and psychological harm, not just physical injury.
Case 6 (Bonus): State v. Anil Kumar Thapa (NKP 2073, Vol. 5, Decision No. 9400)
Facts:
The accused engaged in financial fraud affecting multiple victims. Each victim submitted statements outlining financial loss and mental stress.
Issue:
How should the court weigh multiple VIS submissions in sentencing for financial crimes?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the collective impact of multiple victims is an aggravating factor, leading to enhanced sentencing and restitution orders.
Ratio:
VIS can be cumulative, reflecting the broader social and economic consequences of the crime.
5. Analysis and Principles Derived
From these cases, several principles emerge regarding VIS in Nepal:
Legitimate Sentencing Factor: VIS can aggravate or mitigate sentences.
Scope of Harm: Includes physical, emotional, psychological, social, and financial harm.
Applicability: Relevant in crimes against persons, property crimes, financial crimes, and domestic violence.
Individual or Collective Statements: Both individual victims and affected groups or organizations can submit statements.
Not Determinative Alone: Courts balance VIS against statutory sentencing guidelines and mitigating factors.
6. Practical Implications
Restorative Justice: VIS supports the victim’s voice and societal recognition of harm.
Enhanced Sentencing: Courts can use VIS to increase penalties within the prescribed limits.
Compensation and Restitution: VIS can guide financial reparations and medical or counseling support.
Judicial Awareness: Encourages judges to consider broader societal and emotional impacts, not just legal facts.
7. Conclusion
Victim Impact Statements are an important tool in Nepalese criminal law to ensure sentencing reflects the real-world consequences of crime. Nepalese courts have increasingly recognized VIS as a factor in enhancing sentences and awarding compensation, whether in physical assault, sexual crimes, attempted crimes, domestic violence, or financial crimes.
VIS strengthens the participatory role of victims and aligns Nepalese jurisprudence with global trends in victim-centered justice.
RELATED Blog
comments