A police complaint has been filed against those trying to reveal identity of the victim raped by cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane.
A complaint has been lodged in the Cyber Bureau of the Nepal Police mentioning six social media pages, according to SP Pashupati Raya. “We have received a complaint. We are investigating to identify those involved in this,” SP Raya stated.
The complaint has cited sections 294 and 298 of the National Penal (Code) Act, and section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act.
Section 294(1) of the National Penal (Code) Act, 2017 about prohibition of divulging confidential matter states that no person shall divulge another person's confidential matter, which he or she comes to know from such person in the course of his or her professional work, except where such divulgence is compelled by law or permitted by such person. Similarly, section 294(2) states that a person who commits the offense referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or both the sentences.
Similarly sub-section 1 of the section 298 about prohibition of breaching privacy through electronic means states that no person shall obtain, in an unauthorized manner, a notice, information and correspondence lying in or to be transmitted from any electronic means or breach privacy thereof, or transfer, or cause to be transferred, the same to another person in an unauthorized manner.
Sub-section 2 similarly states that a person who commits, or causes to be committed, the offense referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees or both the sentences.
Many fans of Lamichhane including one Diwas Sapkota, who claims to be Chitwan district member of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Avishek Gharti Magar, Govinda Bishwokarma, Barsha Tamang and others have posted photos of a girl on the social media identifying her to be the victim raped by Lamichhane after a bench of Kathmandu District Court Judge Shishir Dhakal on Wednesday announced a jail sentence of eight years for Lamichhane.
Sapkota has already removed his post but many posts identifying the victim are still circulating in the social media.
Those revealing identity of the victim can be jailed as per different clauses of the Crime Victim Protection Act, the Privacy Act and the Electronic Transaction Act, according to Spokesperson at the Office of the Attorney General Surya Raj Dahal.
Section 6 of the Crime Victim Protection Act guarantees right to privacy of the victims of rape, incest, human trafficking, sexual harassment, and other criminal offenses as prescribed by the Government of Nepal by publishing a notice in the Nepal Gazette.
Similarly, section 3(4) of the Privacy Act, 2018 states that no person shall publish, or cause to be published, any matters related to privacy of body and personal life of person so as to affect, inflict or insult in the personal life of such a person, by writing, speaking, publishing or using electronic means or any other manner.
Likewise, Section 47(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 about publication of illegal materials in electronic form states that if any person publishes or displays any material in the electronic media including computer, internet which are prohibited to publish or display by the prevailing law or which may be contrary to the public morality or decent behavior or any types
of materials which may spread hate or jealousy against anyone or which may jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the peoples of various castes, tribes and communities shall be liable to the punishment with the fine not exceeding One Hundred Thousand Rupees or with the imprisonment not exceeding five years or with both.
Section 47(2) states that if any person commit an offence referred to in Sub-section (1) time to time he/she shall be liable to the punishment for each time with one and one half percent of the punishment of the previous punishment.
Dahal has added that the Supreme Court (SC) in a verdict in 2008 explained that revealing identity of a victim whose privacy should be maintained is insult of the victim.
He has pointed that the police and the court in the complaint and case give a symbolic name to the victim to maintain privacy, and added that it is the responsibility of the state to punish those who violate the laws formulated to protect privacy of the victims.
“Those who publish identity of the victim would be punished as per criminal laws as it is the duty of the state to protect privacy of the victim,” he has stressed.
Another public prosecutor has told Setopati that the process can be initiated if the victim submits an application against those revealing or trying to reveal her identity.
Nepal Police Spokesperson DIG Kuber Kathayat has revealed that there are also other processes to initiate action in this case. Anyone can inform the police if any person reveals or tries to reveal the victim’s identity. The police can also initiate the process suo motu by creating a report against those revealing identity of the victim whose identity is kept secret by the police.
The court on Wednesday also fined Lamichhane Rs 300,000 and ordered him to pay a compensation of Rs 200,000 to the victim.
On December 29, Judge Dhakal’s bench found Lamichhane guilty of raping a girl. Judge Dhakal ruled that Lamichhane had raped the girl taking advantage of her poor financial status.
But the court refused, on the basis of different documents, the claims that the girl was a minor at the time of rape.
A girl filed a rape complaint against Lamichhane at the Gaushala Police Circle on September 6, 2022.
The girl complained that Lamichhane took her out to different places of Bhaktapur and Kathmandu on August 21, a day before Lamichhane left for the bilateral series with Kenya.
She accused Lamichhane of raping her multiple times in room number 305 of a hotel in Kathmandu Metropolitan City Ward Number 9 that night.
The girl claimed in her complaint that she had gone to Nagarkot with Lamichhane on August 17 after being introduced to him through a friend.
An arrest warrant was issued against Lamichhane on September 8 and the Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) suspended him from the national team later the same day.
On September 26, Interpol issued a diffusion notice for Lamichhane on the request of Nepal Police after he did not return to Nepal from the West Indies. Lamichhane was arrested upon landing at the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu on October 6.
The Kathmandu District Court, holding the preliminary hearing on the case on November 4, remanded Lamichhane to custody for investigation.
Lamichhane appealed against the district court’s order at the Patan High Court. On January 2, 2023, the high court released him on a bail of Rs 2 million. The court said that Lamichhane was not allowed to travel abroad, was required to inform the police before leaving the Kathmandu Valley, and was not allowed to contact the victim directly or indirectly.
Lamichhane and the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) then moved the Supreme Court against the high court’s order. Lamichhane filed a petition at the Supreme Court on February 24 demanding that he be allowed to travel abroad to play cricket, while the OAG filed a separate application demanding that Lamichhane be tried in custody.
Conducting a hearing on both applications on February 27, a joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Sapana Malla Pradhan and Kumar Chudal issued an order allowing Lamichhane to travel abroad stating that he was a national player.
The Kathmandu District Court had been collecting evidence related to the case until then. But the case started being scheduled for final hearing 10 months ago.
Most of the justices hearing the case protracted the case by only ordering documents related to the victim’s date of birth. On August 17, Justice Raju Kumar Khatiwada issued an order to ascertain the date of birth of the victim’s mother as well.
Some justices said that they could not hear the case even when they had time while some put off the case even after hearing the arguments. Some even asked the government attorney to postpone the case.
In the intervening period, the court accorded Lamichhane facilities not given to other accused. The court once did not schedule any hearing for two months after Lamichhane filed an application requesting the court to not schedule any hearing when he was abroad to play cricket. Hearings on such cases cannot be deferred by more than 15 days – when there is a death or tragedy – that would benefit the accused.
(The complaint has not been lodged by the victim as reported earlier. The error is regretted)
