A Study on the Certain Rape Cases Ruling by the Supreme Court of Nepal: Analyzing How the Decision Reflects Patriarchal

Authors: Bishnu Bhandari

Abstract:

Proving rape in court is challenging worldwide. In a developing country like Nepal, imagine the beginning of a rape trial, with a male police officer filing a case, a male investigating officer, male lawyers, and a majority of male judges. What if the final court fails to examine the seriousness of the victim's pain and suffering, and what if the injustice committed by the court because of its patriarchal value. This research will explore the unfairness of the Supreme Court of Nepal's historic judgment towards the victim of rape. To analyze the cases, research data was used from Nepal Kanun Patrika, which is a collection of verdicts from the Supreme Court of Nepal for 66 years. Doctrinal methodology was employed. The findings revealed that in certain cases, judges made significant favors to the suspect, disregarding circumstantial evidence and using patriarchal reasoning. The court has debated full penetration, half penetration, ejaculation, and the presence of sperm in the victim's underwear. For many years, the court has been conducting this type of debate. Some of the reasoning is baseless. Nepal's legal system is adversarial, where precedent influences future decisions, and lower courts are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. This study is a fresh start in challenging the Supreme Court decision with a feminist perspective.

Keywords: rape case, verdict, Supreme Court of Nepal, patriarchal.