Introduction
In the annals of legal history, cases built on circumstantial evidence often present a formidable challenge, demanding meticulous scrutiny to ensure justice prevails. In the judgment of Bhuwane Basnet v. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Bhuwane was accused of murder and convicted by the district court and the high court based on the circumstantial evidence surrounding the disappearance of Lalmati Damai. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions and acquitted Bhuwane. In this case review, we dissect the complexities and analyze the Supreme Court’s rationale for acquittal and its critical evaluation of the presented evidence. Ultimately, we will explore the enduring importance of this judgment in reinforcing fundamental criminal justice principles, especially the stringent standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in homicide cases where direct evidence is lacking and the very occurrence of a crime is cast into shadow.
What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence that indicates a conclusion without directly establishing the evidence. It is evidence that does not directly prove a fact in dispute but allows a jury or judge to draw a reasonable connection about the existence of that fact based on a chain of related circumstances to conclude.
The Facts of the Case:
Bhuwane Basnet had allegedly raped Lalmati Damini, resulting in her pregnancy. One day, when they were out singing, Lalmati confronted Bhuwane Basnet about her pregnancy, asking, What should we do? Bhuwane suggested eloping to India tomorrow night and living there. Lalmati’s friends Panmati and Juna Damini overheard this conversation. At approximately 9 PM the next day, Lalmati never returned to her house. After realizing this, when asked about Lalmati, he denied taking her away and said he had gone to his brother-in-law’s house. Here, after these circumstances, Harke Damai, father of Lalmati, strongly suspects that Bhuwane killed Lalmati and threw her body into the Karnali river, and filed a formal complaint against him.
Deep Bahadur, Juna, Panmati, Sarki Damai, and Prabha Khadka noticed them talking separately when only Bhuwane returned home; they suspected and reported this in a written statement to the police that Bhuwane had killed Lalmati and thrown her body into the Karnali River.
Bhuwane Basnet denied all allegations in his written statement to the police and take a plea alibi of visiting his brother in law Prabha Khadka, in Katwal village to exorcise his unwell son after being informed by two unknown Kami men. and claimed that he neither raped Lanmati, nor eloped with her, nor killed her and threw her body into the Karnali River.
Based on the available evidence and proof, it appears that Bhuwane Basnet deliberately killed Lalmati. Therefore, as per Section 13(3) of the Muluki Ain, 2020, legal action should be taken against him, and he should be punished accordingly, as stated in the police report.
He denied all allegations and information about Lalmati’s when her father asked, asserting he had not abandoned her. Bhuwane was unaware if she was pregnant, mentioning that her husband had been in India for two years and acknowledged attempting intercourse but failing twice to engage with Lalmati, and suggested her pregnancy might have stemmed from those attempts.
Harke Damai had searched for his daughter, Lalmati, both at her aunt’s and her husband’s homes, but she was missing. He mentioned that her husband had been in India for three years and had recently visited, but still, there was no sign of his daughter. He also revealed that his daughter appeared in his dreams three times, including a vision of being pushed into the Karnali River.
The Dailekh District Court, in its ruling, sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all property.
The Bheri Zonal Court upheld the original verdict of the Dailekh Court.
Bhuwane appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the mistake would be rectified and justice would be served. The court should inform Prabha Khadka and others to record their testimony and overturn the judgment.
Prabha Khadka rebutted his early statement as it was under the coercion of the Inspector when his son was ill at home, and he took Bhuwane with him in the evening to perform an exorcism ritual to ward off evil spirits. That evening, Bhuwane sat as a shaman, gave instructions, and left early the next morning, saying he wouldn’t eat due to Saturday fasting.
Sarki Damai, Panmati, Maili Damini, and Juna Damin gave consistent testimonies claiming their full belief that Bhuwane murdered and dumped Lalmati in the Karnali River.
The Division Bench ruled that the Zonal Court’s decision was invalid, based solely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence rather than concrete evidence. The Bench determined that the conviction lacked sufficient legal grounds and directed that the case be re-examined.
Procedural History:
Dailekh District Court:
Since a single woman disappeared and there is no reasonable basis to believe that she is alive elsewhere, it is unjustified to assume otherwise. Based on the written statement of Panmati and others, who were present during the singing that night, and the fact that Bhuwane was absent from both his home and his brother-in-law’s house, it is evident that they were together that night.
Upon hearing the fact about her pregnancy, the fear of revealing the truth led him to a state of imbalance, where he committed another crime to cover up the first one. As a result, he deliberately killed Lalmati. The Dailekh District Court, in its ruling, sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all property.
Bheri Zonal Court:
The Bheri Zonal Court upheld the original verdict of the Dailekh Court, stating that Bhuwane Basnet’s alibi was unconvincing by contradicting his claims, where Prabha Khadka, his brother-in-law, confirmed that he had not visited his house and that suspicions of murder remained strong based on circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the court noted that Bhuwane had a motive to conceal the pregnancy, which could have led him to commit the crime. Based on these factors, the court ruled that the initial judgment of the district court of life imprisonment with property confiscation was justified.
Supreme Court, Division Bench:
The Division Bench heard the appeal and overturned the District Court and Bheri Zonal Court’s decision, as it was based solely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence rather than concrete evidence. The Bench determined that the conviction lacked sufficient legal grounds and acquitted Bhuwane Basnet.
Laws Involved in the Case:
As is inherent in any judicial proceeding, the court considers and analyzes various laws and legal principles relevant to the specific facts and circumstances. The following section outlines the rules that were used in this case.
Section 13(3) of Chapter 10 related to Homicide, Muluki Ain 2020 states :
In cases where a person kills another person by hitting, beating, stabbing, or poking by using a stone or other minor weapon or any act which results in death if such an act has been committed by a person, such person, and, if it is proved by the evidence that the person was killed or died due to the hurt inflicted by any particular person in a case where a group of people was involved in the commission, such person shall be considered to be the principal murderer. Such a person shall be liable to the punishment of imprisonment for life, along with confiscation of the entire property. Any person other than those mentioned above and where it cannot be proved by the evidence that a particular person killed the victim or where the person who has used the weapon to hurt the victim cannot be identified, all of them involved in the commission of crime shall be liable to the punishment of imprisonment for life.
The Argument of the Petitioner:
Bhuwane Basnet had allegedly raped Lalmati Damini, resulting in her pregnancy. On 2024/6/19 B.S., while they were out singing, Lalmati confronted Bhuwane Basnet about her pregnancy, asking What should we do? Bhuwane suggested eloping to India tomorrow night and living there. Lalmati’s friends, Panmati and Juna Damini, overheard this conversation. On 2024/6/20 B.S. at approximately 9 PM, Lalmati left her house and never returned. The next day, on Ashwin 21, Bhuwane was not at his house. He returned home around 6 PM after killing Lalmati and was thrown in the Karnali River tied with a stone.
Based on the elopement plan heard by Lalmati’s friends, Harke Damai filed the complaint and further stated in his complaint that since the month of Mangsir, his daughter had appeared in his dreams three times, claiming that she had been pushed into the Karnali River by the same accused. Based on the primary witness, Harke Damai, and the investigation report by the District Police Inspector of Dailekh and the Acting Public Prosecutor, it was determined that Bhuwane had eloped with Lalmati on the night, murdered her, and disposed of her body in the Karnali River.
The government attorney argued that the case should be evaluated based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eyewitnesses to the crime and a charge under Section 13(3) of Chapter 10 (Chapter on Homicide), Muluki Ain,2020, filed seeking life imprisonment along with the confiscation of the property.
The Argument of the Defense:
Bhuwane Basnet denied all allegations and took a plea alibi of visiting his brother-in-law, Prabha Khadka, in Katwal village, to exorcise his unwell son after being informed by two unknown Kami men. He argued that the prosecution’s case was based on fabricated testimonies due to prior disputes with Bhuvane’s brother Jorasau over sexual offenses. It may be a conspiracy to take revenge by sending his daughter to his husband in India for work. There is a lack of direct evidence, and murder is a serious offense that cannot be proved by relying on suspicion and circumstantial evidence.
Issues raised in the Case:
- Is the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without direct evidence?
- Whether the prosecution adequately establish that a homicide had even occurred (corpus delicti) in the absence of a body and concrete evidence?
- Do the lower courts correctly apply the “Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt” principle?
Relevant judgments referred to in the case
Laxman Raut (Ahir) v HMG
In the case decided on Baisakh 24, 2026, Laxman Raut (Ahir) v His Majesty’s Government, it was established that if the evidence of being at another location (alibi) is undermined or weakened, it strengthens the evidence of being at the crime scene.
Judicial Precedent laid down by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court established that if there is suspicion or doubt whether a crime has occurred, punishing the accused based solely on suspicion is inappropriate. This principle aligns with the general principle in criminal law, which is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning of the Division Bench:
The decision of the Supreme Court is based on the following rationale:
- Lack of Corpus Delicti: The most critical point was the absence of direct evidence that a murder had taken place, but there was no physical evidence like a weapon, blood, or body of Lalmati that directly linked Bhuwane to the crime.
- Circumstantial Evidence and Suspicion: The entire case relied on suspicion and circumstantial evidence. The primary suspicion arose after Bhuwane allegedly planned to elope to India, and Bhuwane returned alone, but Lalmati didn’t. However, suspicion alone is not enough for conviction.
- Insufficient Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: If an action is to be presumed, there must be a reason for its occurrence (cause) and visible consequences (effect) following it. A direct and tangible sign must justify the inference for such a presumption. The sequence of events related to such actions must be logically coherent. Mere fragmented or disjointed claims are insufficient to establish conclusive proof. To definitively confirm such a conclusion, credible testimony or evidence is required.
While deciding the case, the court must determine whether there is conclusive evidence against the accused, Lalmati, regarding her murder and whether the accused was in a transferred location during the incident. Regarding the accused’s claim of being elsewhere, the witnesses presented by the accused, such as Takmane Khatri, stated in their affidavit that they had not met the accused since Ashwin 18, and Govardhan Shahi Prithu testified that they had not interacted with Khatri. No evidence was found to prove the accused was present at any location other than the crime scene. Since the exact date and location of the incident remain unclear, the court must conclusively determine when and where the accused was present. However, there is no substantive evidence to confirm such a link in this case.
As per general legal principles, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene, which has not been done here. There is no clarity on whether Lalmati was at home or alive. Given these doubtful circumstances, it is inappropriate to punish the accused. The accused cannot be sentenced if there is a reasonable doubt about whether the crime even occurred. The case must be dismissed as per the rules and procedures.
Holding/Decision:
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Dailekh District Court and the Bheri Zonal Court and acquitted Bhuwane of homicide. An order was issued to release Bhuwane from jail if he was not detained in any other case and to release his confiscated property.
Conclusion:
This case highlights the importance of direct evidence in a heinous offense like homicide. There is no direct evidence of murder, like a knife, blood, or a body. Confirmation has not been substantiated in this case as the object itself is absent. According to the general rule, the complainant must provide evidence that the accused is the one who committed the crime, and it has not been established that the accused was present at the scene of the incident. There is a doubtful situation of whether Lalmati is dead or alive. It is necessary to decide that, in the absence of body or other direct evidence of murder, circumstantial evidence must be robust and cohesive to prove a conviction. If there is doubt as to whether a crime itself has occurred or not, it is not appropriate to punish the accused. The Supreme Court laid down the importance of forensic investigation and imposed that the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was Decision No. 812 about?
Decision No. 812 about the accusation of homicide case against Bhuwane Basnet, where he was accused of murdering Lalmati Damai and disposing of her body in the Karnali River. The case was about the accusation of homicide against Bhuwane Basnet Chettri. He was accused of murdering Lalmati Damai and disposing of her body in the Karnali River.
2. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Dailekh District Court and the Bheri Zonal Court and acquitted Bhuwane of homicide. An order was issued to release Bhuwane from jail if he was not detained in any other case and to release his confiscated property.
3. What legal principle did the Supreme Court emphasize in its decision?
The Supreme Court laid down the principle that if there is suspicion/ doubt whether a crime has even occurred, it is inappropriate to punish the accused relying solely on suspicion. It aligns with the general principle in criminal law that “Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt”, and “the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.”
Know More Here. Bhuwane Basnet Kshetri Vs HMG
Also visit. Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal Vs HMG
