Evidence Law Case: Nishan K.C v. Government of Nepal, NKP 2080 B.S.,Vol.10, DN: 11175
Case: Rape and Culpable Homicide
Plaintiff: Government of Nepal on the complaint of sarwocha 3 parbat
Defendant: Tejbahadur Kunwar, Budhbahadur Poudel, Prakash K.C, Amrit Kunwar and Falindra Kunwar
Decision Number: 11175
This case is related to the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence in rape and murder cases, joint criminal liability, the role of medical and forensic evidence, and the principle that direct eyewitness evidence is not necessary when the chain of circumstances proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the Case:
On 2067/6/3, a 15-year-old girl went to cut grass in Modikhet, Bajung, Parbat District. When she did not return home, her family searched for her and found her lying unconscious in a paddy field. Her lower clothes had been removed and she had suffered a serious head injury. She was taken to the hospital but died before treatment.
The post-mortem examination concluded that the cause of death was severe head injury. It also found injuries proving that she had been raped before her death.
Five persons from the same village, Tejbahadur Kunwar, Budhbahadur Poudel, Prakash K.C, Amrit Kunwar and Falindra Kunwar, were charged.
Ganesh admitted during investigation that he had forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim but claimed that he acted alone and denied killing her. The remaining four accused denied any involvement.
There was no eyewitness to the offence. The prosecution relied on the crime scene, medical evidence, forensic findings, witness testimony, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident, and other circumstantial evidence.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was raped and murdered.
2. Whether Ganesh acted alone or all the accused jointly participated.
3. Whether circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses was sufficient to convict.
4. Whether all accused could be held equally liable when it was impossible to identify who caused the fatal injury.
5. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision of the Courts:
Parbat District Court:
The District Court convicted Tejbahadur Kunwar of rape and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. Budhabahadur Poudel was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment as an accomplice, while Prakash K.C., Amrit Kunwar, and Phanindra Kunwar were each sentenced to 2 years imprisonment as accomplices.
Baglung Appeal Court:
The Appeal Court reversed the District Court’s decision. It held that Tejbahadur kunwar, Budhabahadur poudel, Prakash K.C. and Amrit Kunwar had jointly committed the rape and murder and sentenced all four to life imprisonment. It acquitted Phanindra Kunwar due to insufficient evidence.
Supreme Court (Joint Bench):
The Supreme Court upheld the Appeal Court’s judgment, confirming the life imprisonment of Tejbahadur kunwar, Budhabahadur poudel, Prakash K.C. and Amrit Kunwar, while also affirming Phanindra Kunwar’s acquittal.
Supreme Court (Full Bench Review):
The Full Bench dismissed the review petitions and upheld the convictions. The Court held that although there was no direct eyewitness, the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including:
• The condition of the crime scene indicated that more than one person had been involved.
• The victim was carrying a sickle, making it unlikely that one intoxicated person alone could overpower her without resistance.
• Some accused had scratch injuries that were consistent with a struggle and could not satisfactorily explain them.
• Medical evidence supported the conclusion that the victim had been raped before being killed.
• Witnesses consistently placed Tejbahadur, Budhbahadur, Prakash and Amrit together near the crime scene immediately before and after the incident.
• The behaviour of the accused after the incident further strengthened the prosecution’s case.
The Court ruled that when circumstantial evidence forms a complete, consistent and unbroken chain, it is sufficient to prove guilt even without direct evidence. The Court also held that where several persons jointly commit a crime and it is impossible to identify who inflicted the fatal injury, all participants are equally liable for the murder.
The review petitions of Budhbahadur, Prakash K.C. and Amrit Kunwar were dismissed. Their life sentences remained in force. Tejbahadur’s conviction and Phanindra’s acquittal had already become final.
Principle Established:
• Circumstantial evidence can by itself sustain a criminal conviction if it forms a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
• Direct eyewitness evidence is not essential in rape and murder cases.
• Crime scene evidence and medical evidence are highly reliable forms of evidence.
• Courts must assess the cumulative effect of all circumstances rather than each circumstance separately.
• When several offenders act together and the actual person causing death cannot be identified, all participants may be held equally liable.
