The legal issue centers on whether Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal intentionally killed her newborn child, born out of wedlock, and the appropriate sentence considering her age and social circumstances. This judgment is regarded as a landmark for illustrating how the Supreme Court balances legal principles with social realities, particularly in cases involving young defendants and sensitive social issues like out-of-wedlock births and infanticide.
Facts of the Case
Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal, a resident of Gorkha District, became pregnant out of wedlock with her brother-in-law, Manoj Mukhiya. After pregnancy, she concealed it due to social stigma (samaajik loklajja) and gave birth to her baby at home, claiming severe pain and loss of consciousness during delivery. She stated that the newborn baby was found dead upon regaining consciousness, suggesting that death might have been caused by falling on the ground or hitting a stone.
After the death of the infant baby, she wrapped the deceased body in cloth and disposed of it in a field near her house to avoid detection and social disgrace. The body was later discovered with suspicious injuries, including a 2-3 inch cut and a crushed skull, after which Rajesh Bhattarai filed a complaint. Further investigations have been done where post-mortem and scene investigation confirmed the homicide of the infant child.
The Gorkha District Court found her guilty of culpable homicide under Section 1 and Section 13(3) of the Muluki Ain Chapter on Homicide. Initially, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, but later it was reduced to five years, considering her age and lack of use of a lethal weapon. It was upheld by the Appellate Court in Pokhara and reviewed by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the sentence and ordered her release after accounting for time served (1 year, 7 months, 11 days).
Issued Raised in the Case
- Whether Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal is guilty of culpable homicide under Section 13(3) of the Muluki Ain for allegedly killing her newborn child.
- What is the appropriate sentence considering her age, the nature of the crime, and social circumstances?
Prosecution’s Arguments:
Samjhana intentionally killed the newborn to avoid social stigma, which is supported by physical evidence such as the baby’s injuries (cut on the neck, crushed skull) and her actions to hide the body. Crime scene and autopsy reports, along with witness statements and Samjhana’s statements during the investigation, corroborate intentional harm.
Defense’s Arguments:
The baby was stillborn or died accidentally during birth due to Samjhana’s unconscious state and physical pain, with no intent to kill. The death was an accident, and Samjhana’s young age (18/19 years) and social pressure should be considered mitigating factors.
Court’s Reasoning
The court’s reasoning involved the following legal principles and doctrines:
She has committed culpable homicide under section 1 and section 13(3) of the Mukuki Ain Chapter on Homicide. Relying on the baby’s condition and Samjhana’s action to establish guilt, the sentence of life imprisonment isn’t considered appropriate where as the reduced sentence to 5 years also seems to be high since she has committed the crime due to the fear of social stigma and illegitimate pregnancy of brother in law the imprisonment which she has already served of 1 years 7 months and 11 days sufficient to fulfill the motto of justice.
Judgment:
Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal was found guilty of culpable homicide under Section 13(3) of the Muluki Ain and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. However, given that she had served one year, seven months, and eleven days, the court ordered her immediate release from Gorkha prison and directed the prison branch to inform the court accordingly.
Conclusion
This judgment contributes to Nepalese constitutional jurisprudence by illustrating the application of the Muluki Ain in cases involving culpable homicide while considering social and cultural factors and the lack of lethal weapons. It underscores the importance of mitigating circumstances in sentencing to ensure justice is both served and perceived as fair, reflecting a nuanced approach to legal and social interplay.
Know More.Samjhana Lamichhane Dhakal Vs HMG. D.N.7169
Also Read. Adv.Khagendra Subedi Vs Government of Nepal
