Police have arrested a man who posted a girl’s photo claiming it to be of cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane’s rape victim.
The arrested is Keshar Man Rai of Sankhuwasabha. The Cyber Bureau of Nepal Police arrested him from Sankhuwasabha and brought him to Kathmandu on Wednesday.
According to a source at the Cyber Bureau, they have moved investigation forward after getting a seven-day extension of Rai’s custody.
Rai will be charged with attempt to reveal the identity of a rape victim, the source added.
A girl had filed a complaint against Rai at the Cyber Bureau a few days ago.
Last week, the Cyber Bureau requested Meta, the parent company of Facebook, to provide details of individuals trying to reveal the identity of Lamichhane’s rape victim.
A complaint was lodged with the Bureau on Thursday mentioning six social media pages trying to reveal the identity of Lamichhane’s rape victim.
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 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 a 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 on 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 for the Office of the Attorney General Surya Raj Dahal.
Section 6 of the Crime Victim Protection Act guarantees the right to privacy of 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 offense 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 moto 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.
