DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇵 Nepal /Crime & Justice

Supreme Court acquits bigamy accused, citing limitation period, departs from precedent

From Kathmandu Post · () English

Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Sources not specified Outcome reported
  • The Supreme Court of Nepal acquitted a man accused of bigamy, overturning a district court's conviction by invoking a three-month limitation period.
  • This ruling departed from a 2006 precedent that broadened accountability for bigamy, potentially allowing offenders to evade prosecution if the first wife remains silent for three months after learning of the second marriage.
  • The author of the controversial verdict, Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, was appointed to his position bypassing the senior-most judge convention, raising questions about his judicial record and philosophy.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has acquitted a man of bigamy, sixteen years after his initial conviction, by applying a strict three-month limitation period from the date the first wife became aware of the second marriage. This decision, authored by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, marks a significant departure from a 2006 Supreme Court precedent. That earlier ruling had expanded accountability by stating the limitation period began when authorities became aware of the offense, preventing offenders from using concealment or coercion to evade prosecution.

bigamy had indeed occurred, but Sanjeev had to be acquitted because Chanda had failed to register her complaint within the absolute “three-month limitation period from the date she became aware of the second marriage.”

— Supreme Court benchThe Supreme Court's justification for acquitting the man accused of bigamy.

The new interpretation, delivered by a narrow three-to-two margin on a five-member bench, could allow husbands to escape bigamy charges if they can prevent their first wives from complaining within three months of discovering a second marriage. This has raised concerns among legal experts about the potential for offenders to exploit this loophole.

This interpretation meant that if a husband could successfully deter, threaten, or financially manipulate his first wife into remaining silent for just three months, he would be permanently shielded from criminal prosecution for bigamy.

— legal expertsThe potential consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling on bigamy cases.

Chief Justice Sharma, appointed in May and serving a six-year term, wrote this judgment, his first on behalf of an extended full bench. His appointment itself bypassed the convention of elevating the senior-most judge, with proponents citing his high case disposal rate. Critics, however, question the depth of his personal judicial contribution, prompting a closer examination of his rulings. A review of his published verdicts since joining the Supreme Court in 2019 reveals a pattern that warrants further scrutiny.

This case marked the first and only time in his career that Sharma was entrusted with authoring a judgment on behalf of an extended full bench of the Supreme Court.

— Kathmandu PostHighlighting the significance of the ruling for Chief Justice Sharma's judicial record.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Kathmandu Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog