Vigilantism And Private Justice In Nepal
1. Concept and Legal Framework
Vigilantism refers to actions taken by individuals or groups to enforce law or punish perceived wrongdoers without legal authority. Private justice often overlaps, where citizens take the law into their own hands due to lack of faith in formal legal systems.
Relevant Legal Provisions in Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal)
Section 16: Illegal acts by individuals causing harm to others cannot be justified as private justice.
Sections 204–205: Punishes murder, assault, or grievous harm. Vigilante killings or beatings fall under these provisions.
Section 10: Lawful self-defense is allowed, but excessive use of force beyond necessity is punishable.
Human Rights and Due Process
Constitution of Nepal, 2015, guarantees the right to life and liberty (Article 16), and the right to legal remedy (Article 24).
Vigilantism violates constitutional protections and undermines the state monopoly on law enforcement.
Public Interest
Vigilante acts are often seen in remote areas or during perceived law enforcement failure.
Courts treat such acts seriously and distinguish between lawful defense and illegal private justice.
2. Case Analyses
Case 1: State vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa (Kathmandu, 2015)
Facts: Ram Bahadur, suspecting theft, led a group to publicly beat a young man accused of stealing cattle. Victim died from injuries.
Evidence: Witness testimony, medical reports confirming death due to assault.
Court Findings: Vigilante action exceeded any reasonable private defense. No legal authority justified taking life.
Outcome: Convicted under Sections 204 and 205 (murder and grievous harm). Sentenced to life imprisonment for main offender, shorter terms for accomplices.
Observations: Demonstrated courts’ strict stance on lethal vigilantism, distinguishing it from self-defense.
Case 2: State vs. Gopal Koirala (Chitwan, 2016)
Facts: Villagers tied a suspected fraudster to a tree and publicly humiliated him. He suffered minor injuries but significant psychological trauma.
Evidence: Police investigation, victim testimony.
Court Findings: Physical assault, unlawful detention, and mental harassment constituted criminal offense.
Outcome: Offenders convicted under Sections 179–180 (assault and wrongful confinement). Sentenced to 1–3 years imprisonment and fines.
Observations: Courts emphasized psychological harm as part of vigilante crime.
Case 3: State vs. Shyam Lama (Pokhara, 2017)
Facts: Shyam and neighbors lynched a man accused of molestation. Victim survived with severe injuries.
Evidence: Eyewitness accounts, hospital reports, confessions.
Court Findings: Vigilante attack not justified; no legal investigation or trial took place prior.
Outcome: Convicted under grievous harm (Sections 177–178) and unlawful assembly. Sentenced to 5–6 years imprisonment.
Observations: Courts reaffirmed that accusations do not allow citizens to bypass judicial process.
Case 4: State vs. Deepak Gurung (Lalitpur, 2018)
Facts: Deepak suspected a neighbor of theft; he set up a trap causing severe injury to the neighbor.
Evidence: Police investigation, forensic report, and neighbor testimony.
Court Findings: Pre-planned action constituted intentional grievous harm. Vigilante behavior without legal authority is criminal.
Outcome: 7 years imprisonment and compensation to victim.
Observations: Courts distinguish between immediate self-defense and premeditated private punishment.
Case 5: State vs. Janak Singh (Biratnagar, 2019)
Facts: Group of locals publicly executed a person accused of witchcraft.
Evidence: Confessions, eyewitness testimony, postmortem reports.
Court Findings: Act was murder under criminal law; cultural belief does not justify vigilante killings.
Outcome: Life imprisonment for main offenders, 10–15 years for accomplices. Compensation ordered to victim’s family.
Observations: Courts rejected cultural justification as defense, stressing state monopoly on criminal justice.
Case 6: State vs. Raju Thapa and Others (Dang, 2020)
Facts: Suspected cattle thieves were tied up and beaten by villagers; two died.
Evidence: Victims’ families, autopsy reports, police investigation.
Court Findings: Vigilante action led to unlawful killings. State law applies even in remote areas.
Outcome: Life imprisonment for principal offenders; compensation ordered to families of deceased.
Observations: Reinforced principle: private justice cannot override criminal law.
Case 7: State vs. Anita Shrestha (Kathmandu, 2021)
Facts: Anita took revenge on a former business partner by organizing public humiliation and minor physical assault.
Evidence: Video footage, witness testimony.
Court Findings: Vigilantism even without death is punishable; damages inflicted on victim are unlawful.
Outcome: 2 years imprisonment and monetary fine.
Observations: Non-lethal private justice still attracts criminal liability and compensation obligations.
3. Key Observations
Forms of Vigilantism in Nepal
Lynching and mob violence.
Public humiliation.
Pre-planned harm for alleged crimes.
Cultural-based punishments (witchcraft, social ostracism).
Judicial Principles
Distinction from lawful self-defense: Only immediate threat can justify self-defense; premeditated action is criminal.
State monopoly on law enforcement: Private punishment is illegal.
Compensation and rehabilitation: Courts often order payment to victims or victims’ families.
Challenges
Rural areas sometimes experience higher incidence due to weak formal law enforcement.
Cultural or social acceptance can complicate enforcement.
Fear of retaliation can discourage reporting vigilante acts.
Judicial Trends
Courts consistently impose severe punishment for lethal or premeditated vigilante acts.
Psychological harm is recognized alongside physical injury.
Cultural or social motivations do not provide legal defense.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Location | Nature of Vigilantism | Outcome | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Bahadur Thapa | 2015 | Kathmandu | Lynching over theft | Life imprisonment | Lethal vigilante action strictly punished |
| Gopal Koirala | 2016 | Chitwan | Public beating & humiliation | 1–3 yrs imprisonment | Psychological harm recognized |
| Shyam Lama | 2017 | Pokhara | Mob attack on molester | 5–6 yrs imprisonment | Accusation not legal justification |
| Deepak Gurung | 2018 | Lalitpur | Premeditated assault | 7 yrs imprisonment | Distinguishes self-defense vs private justice |
| Janak Singh | 2019 | Biratnagar | Cultural-based execution | Life imprisonment | Cultural beliefs not defense |
| Raju Thapa & Others | 2020 | Dang | Mob violence, two deaths | Life imprisonment | Vigilantism illegal even in remote areas |
| Anita Shrestha | 2021 | Kathmandu | Public humiliation & assault | 2 yrs imprisonment | Non-lethal private justice punishable |
5. Conclusion
Vigilantism in Nepal is strictly criminalized, regardless of social, cultural, or perceived moral justification.
Private justice cannot replace the formal judicial system.
Courts increasingly recognize both physical and psychological harm caused by vigilante acts.
Effective enforcement requires awareness campaigns, strong policing, and community trust in the legal system to prevent self-help justice.
RELATED Blog
comments