Socio-Economic Crime Case: Sitaram Giri V. Government of Nepal,(075-CR- 0224),
Case: Kidnapping, Hostage-taking and Organized Crime
Plaintiff/Applicant: Government of Nepal
Defendant/Respondent: Sitaram Giri and others
Decision Number: (075-CR-0224)
This is the case of kidnapping and unlawful confinement of an Indian national for ransom and the issue is whether the offence was also an organized crime under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070.
Facts of the Case:
A student of B.B.A. Indian national Ritesh Kumar was called by Ajay Kumar Rai who had identified as a consultant in Patna, India. Rai provided employment for Ritesh at the Hulash Steel, Simara, Nepal. Ritesh took up the offer and after being directed to contact a person named Ramesh alias Singh Saheb, he headed towards Nepal.
Ritesh was picked up from Raxaul area on 6 Bhadra 2071 B.S. and brought to Birgunj and then towards a forest region. He was handed over to several persons who tied him up, assaulted him and kept him hostage. He was also seized of his mobile phone, identification documents and money. The kidnappers held Ritesh hostage for several days before they got in touch with his father and asked him to hand them over money. They demanded Rs. 50 Lakhs as ransom, saying that Ritesh will be killed if the ransom is not paid. Ritesh was also asked to have a conversation with his father in the ransom messages.
Jai Chandra Prasad Sah Kanu and Arvind Kumar Mandal were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the ransom demand and the police investigated the telephone numbers used for that purpose. Later, on 19th of Bhadra 2071 B.S., Ritesh was rescued from the forest by the police when the kidnappers got to know that the police were searching them. In the course of investigation, various accused gave statements against each other and had already prepared a plan to recruit Indian nationals for employment and kidnap them to get them hostaged and ransom. The claims referred to assigning various roles to various people, such as fetching the victim from India, carrying him off on a motorcycle and keeping him hostage and demanding ransom. The investigation also yielded phone records, mobile phones and SIM cards, identification cards, victim and witness statements and identification cards identifying several of the accused.
The prosecution had claimed that the accused had been involved in both kidnapping/hostage taking and organized crime under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070.
Legal Issues:
- If the accused were involved in kidnapping and unlawfully taking Ritesh Kumar hostage in order to demand ransom?
- If the evidence offered by the prosecution was adequate to substantiate the individual charges against the accused?
- Whether the accused acts committed by the accused were connected with the commission of organized crime under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070?
- Whether three or more individuals are involved in the commission of a serious offence is enough for it to be considered organized crime?
- Whether the prosecution had proved that he was part of an organized or continuous organized criminal enterprise for an organized crime conviction?
Decision of the Courts:
District Court: Most of the accused were found guilty of kidnapping and hostage-taking by the Parsa District Court. The court convicted Pramod alias Nandu Sah, Jai Chandra Prasad Sah Kanu, Arvind Kumar Mandal and Ram Babu Mahato under the relevant provision of the Kidnapping and Hostage-taking chapter and sentenced them each to 8 years’ imprisonment with an additional 2 years’ imprisonment, making 10 years each, and imposed a fine of Rs. 60,000/- each. It found Surendra Thakur, Sitaram Giri, Mukesh Kumar Mahato, Budhan Ram Chamar and Bhoja Tharu guilty and sentenced each to 7 years in prison along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 2-year additional jail term, for a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. 50,000/- each. But Dipendra Thakur was acquitted and the court did not resort to the extra punishment demanded under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070.
High court: The District Court’s decision was partly modified by High Court. It reduced the sentences of Jai Chandra Prasad Sah Kanu, Pramod alias Nandu Sah, Arvind Kumar Mandal and Ram Babu Mahato. It also upheld the convictions of Sitaram Giri, Surendra Thakur, Mukesh Kumar Mahato, Budhan Ram Chamar and Bhoja Tharu. The High Court maintained Dipendra Thakur’s acquittal. The prosecution failed to prove the additional offence of organized crime under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070 and the High Court did not impose the additional punishment provided in Section 9(a) of the Act.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court uphelded High Court’s decision. Convicting Sitaram Giri, Surendra Thakur and acquitting Dipendra Thakur. Regarding organized crime the Court explained that three or more involved in a crime together does not necessarily mean the crime is organized. For the organized criminal group to be recognized, there needs to be evidence of an organized criminal group, which includes the following elements: continuity, an organisation structure, a system of criminal activity, planning, limited membership and a fixed organisation for the purpose of crime.
Established Principles:
- Organized crime is not defined by the involvement of three or more people in the commission of a serious offence. In order to establish organized crime, the prosecution must establish, through concrete and objective evidence, the existence of an organized criminal group, as defined by the Organized Crime Prevention Act, 2070, with the necessary structural and continuous characteristics.
- The prosecution is responsible for proving organized crime. The Government should be able to prove the elements of the crime of organized crime and not just the number of accused or their cooperation in committing the offence. A serious offence and an organized crime are not necessarily the same thing.
- An offence can be serious and can be committed collectively without meeting the additional legal requirements for organized crime.
