Bhuvane Basnet Kshetri

vs.
His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, 2031

Presented by:
Aakriti Shrestha
Aarohi Bista
Diprashun Subedi
Salina Panthi
Introduction
Appellant/Defendant: Bhuwane Basnet Chhetri
Plaintiff/Respondent: His Majesty’s Government as per the FIR of
Harke Damai
Decision No. 812
Decided by: Honorable Justice Basudev Sharma
Honorable Justice Heramba Raj
 Date of Judgment: 16 Baisakh, 2031
 Case: Murder
Fact of the Case
 The appeal was filed by Bhuvane Basnet Chhetri, currently lodged in Dailekh District Prison, upon the
judgment given by Dailekh District Court and confirmed (upheld) by Bheri Zonal Court, Nepalgunj,
convicting him of the homicidal murder of Lalmati, daughter of the complainant Harke Damai.

 Facts-in-Brief of the Case :

 Lalmati informed Bhuvane Basnet that she had become pregnant due to having sexual intercourse
with him on Ashwin 19, 2024. Bhuvane Basnet assured along her to run away next day at night. It
was overheard by her friends Panmati, Juna Damini and Dip Bahadur who had gone with her for
singing.

 Next day Lalmati went out of her house at around 9 p.m. and did not return home thereafter. On
enquiry, Bhuvane Basnet denied to know about her whereabouts.

 Harke, the father of missing Lalmati, filed FIR accusing Bhuvane Basnet of killing Lalmati and
throwing her dead body in Karnali river.
 Lalmati’s friends gave statement before the Police recounting about what they had
overheard.

 The accused Bhuvane Basnet denied the charge and talked about the alibi of visiting his
brother-in-law Prabha Khadka to exorcise his son.

 Bhuvane Basnet pleaded not guilty also before Dailekh District Court and put forward
the same alibi. However, he admitted to have erred in having two time sexual intercourse
with Lalmati.

 The Complainant Harke Damai testified before the District Court alleging that his
daughter used to come to his dream and tell that it was Bhuvane Basnet who had killed
her and dumped her body in Karnali river.

 On the basis of the statement given by Lalmati’s friends and the circumstantial evidence
of Bhuvane Basnet’s absence from his house since the night of Ashwin 20 and both
Bhuvane Basnet and Lalmati having gone together outside, the trial Court held the
accused guilty of the prosecution charge and sentenced him to life imprisonment with
confiscation of his share of property.

 The decision of the trial court was upheld by Bheri Zonal Court.
 Bhuvane Basnet appealed to the Supreme Court pleading for calling
his brother-in-law Prabha Khadka and others to record their testimony
in the Court and to overturn the conviction judgment.

 Supreme Court ordered for summoning those persons to Court to

record their testimony which was subsequently completed by Dailekh
District Court.

 Prabha Khadka rebutted his earlier statement given before the Police
alleging it as a statement taken under threat and coercion by the
Police.

 Other witnesses testifed confirming their statement given before the

Police.
Procedural History

Dailekh District Court

Bhuvane was found guilty. He was charged with life imprisonment and confiscation of property.

Bheri Zonal Court

This court upheld Dailekh Supreme Court on the same ground with additional logic that his
brother-in-law Prabha Khadka had stated before Police about Bhuvane Basnet ‘s visit to his
house on the alleged date of crime.

 Supreme Court
Overturned the decision made by Dailekh District Court and Bheri Zonal Court.
Argument of Applicant

Lalmati’s friends overheard their plan of elopement on 2024/06/20.

As per plan, Panmati went out of her house around 9 p.m and did not
return.
Lalmati used to come in dream of Harke Damai and tell that it was
Bhuvane Basnet who had killed her and dumped her body in Karnali
river.
Argument of Respondent
Panmati had accused Bhuvane’s brother Jorasau of sexual offense and
defamed him. The court was still active in this case. This clearly shows
that Harke had enmity with our family. So, in order to take revenge
this conspiracy was planned. Harke might have sent his daughter to
her husband’s place who lives in India or any other place.
Relevant Law
• Section 13(3) of Chapter 10 (Chapter on Homicide), Muluki Ain,2020 which reads
“In cases where a person kills another person by hitting, beating, stabbing, or
poking by using a stone or other minor weapon or by means of any act which
results in the 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 were
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 the victim
was killed by a particular person 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.”
Legal Question
Whether it shall be proper to award punishment to the accused on
the basis of doubtful facts.
Whether it shall be just to punish the accused when there is suspicion
about whether or not the alleged crime has taken place.
Ruling of the Case
When there is suspicion about whether or not the alleged crime has
taken place, it shall not be just to punish the accused.
It shall not be just to punish the accused on the basis of doubtful
facts.
The case was in favor of Bhuwane Basnet Chhetri.
Ratio of the Case
Overturning the conviction judgments given by trial court and Zonal
Court, the Supreme Court observed:
 It is not proper to base the decision on the dream story of the
complainant who was being haunted by mental anxiety.
 No need to fasten the dead body with a stone and then to throw it in
the river whereas if he had so wished, his criminal intent would have
been fulfilled even by simply throwing her alive in the Karnali river.
 Reference to earlier Precedent:
As the plea of alibi disproved the assumption about the accused
person’s presence in the alleged crime as held in the Dacoity case of
Laxman Raut Ahir vs. HMG (Date of Decision: Baisakh 24, 2036), the
alibi plea of the appellant Bhuwane Basnet held good in the case.
 As there was no existence of the corpus (the dead body), it could not
be established by evidence.
 The complainant and the prosecution could not discharge the burden
of proof to establish the physical presence of the accused in the
offence nor could he establish the presence of the accused in the
alleged offence.
 It shall not be just to punish the accused on the basis of doubtful
facts since the death of Lalmati was not proved.
 As the trial judge and the Zonal Judge were already retired, no need
to take any action against them.
Analysis of the Case
Apex Court’s verdict based on precedents which were declaratory in nature.
The Court did not approve of the subordinate courts’ judgments based on
circumstantial evidence.
Burden of Proof :
a. Evidentiary value of the statement given before the police vis-à-
vis Sec. 18 of the Evidence Act, 2031.
b. The apex court correcting procedural errors by issuing an order to
summon the witnesses for testimony.
C. Alibi and reference to previously decided case having declaratory
stare decisis.
 Reference to earlier provision about enforcing accountability of judges for
erroneous judgments.
Judicial Principles (Precedent) laid down
by the Supreme Court

Where there is suspicion about whether or not the alleged crime has
taken place, it shall not be just to punish the accused.
As there was no existence of the corpus (the dead body), it could not
be established by evidence.
The complainant could not either discharge the burden of proof to
establish the physical presence of the accused in the offence or could
he establish the presence of the accused in the alleged offence.
It shall not be proper to sentence the accused to punishment on the
basis of doubtful facts since there is no proof that Lalmati is dead.
Any Questions?
Thank You!