Kathmandu. In the case of cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane, it has been ordered to submit a written argument note. The order was given by a single bench of Kathmandu District Court Judge Keshav Prasad Ghimire.
In view of the content of the case, seriousness, the presence of legal professionals on behalf of the plaintiff, the Government of Nepal and the defendant, and the time taken during the debate, it would be appropriate to submit all the issues in writing through the debate notes in the presence of those parties, and to proceed with the case in writing. The conclusion has been drawn. In the order, it is asked to submit a written argument note on behalf of the plaintiff, Badi Nepal government and the defendant within the office hours on 22nd of November 2080 and attach the missile.
Similarly, it has been asked to inform the plaintiff and the defendant that the date of hearing of the case presented for 24th of November will not be postponed.
Earlier, on August 21, the bench of Judge Shakuntala Karki had ordered to demand the documents submitted during the migration from a local level in Kathmandu, where the victim girl and her family had migrated.
After that, the case of Lamichhane was not brought to court. In some documents, the age of the mother was shown to be low and when there was a dispute regarding the age of the mother, it was ordered to request documents to confirm the date of birth of the mother. After that, the hearing scheduled for October 1 was postponed.
The extortion case registered against Lamichhane in Kathmandu District Court on 14th October 2079 has been filed 26 times so far. Lamichhane was conditionally released by the Patan High Court after the Kathmandu District Court initially sent him to prison for pre-trial detention. But after being banned from going abroad, Lamichhane petitioned the Supreme Court and asked for permission to go abroad.
On that petition, the Supreme Court gave permission to go abroad to play sports and ordered that the information should be given to the court immediately after returning to Nepal. The public prosecutor went to the Supreme Court with a petition to keep Sandeep in jail. According to the order of the Supreme Court, Sandeep has also given one lakh rupees as interim compensation to Gaushala 26, who is said to be the victim. The Supreme Court ordered the accused to pay interim compensation for the medical treatment of the victim.
The age dispute has become the main issue in the rape case in which Sandeep Lamichhane is the defendant. The victim and the plaintiff filed a case on behalf of the government of Nepal claiming that the age of the victim is less than 18 years, while the advocates representing Lamichhane have claimed that the age of the so-called victim has completed 18 years.
According to the date of birth obtained from the official birth registration body, the age of the victim is 18 years and three months at the time of the incident. The victim has claimed that the girl’s age was less than 18 years and her date of birth was 18th May 2062 on the date of the alleged incident on 5th August 2079. But the accused party has claimed that the date of birth of the girl is on 18th June 2061 and has claimed that the age of the girl has reached 18 years.
In the birth registration of a girl at a local level in Nuwakot, it is claimed that the date of birth of the girl is on 18 June 2061. Instead of advocating whether or not the rape took place on the date of the alleged rape, the accused party submitted an argument that the girl had reached the age at that time. Section 219 of the Civil Crimes Code, 2074 stipulates that physical contact with a girl who has not reached the age of 18 is considered coercion, even if it is with mutual consent.
In sub-section 2 of Section 219 of the Code, it is mentioned that even if a Karni transaction is carried out with permission, if the age of the girl child is less than 18 years, it is considered as forced Karni. Based on the same law, Sandeep was accused of raping a girl and sentenced to 10 to 12 years in prison and demanded reasonable compensation.
But if the girl has reached the age of 18 years, there is a situation where sexual relations can be established with mutual consent. The lawyer from Sandi’s side said that there was no force on that day, Sandeep and Kishori went to the hotel with a smile and agreed to stay, and even when they left, they were holding hands and laughing and came out laughing. They insisted that it cannot be called rape.
The Supreme Court, in its order that Sandeep should not be kept in prison, was mainly based on the age dispute. It was said that there was a dispute about the age of the teenager and apart from that, it was said that there is no reason to keep the defendant in custody and proceed with the case based on the physical examination of the teenager, the incident report, CCTV footage, text messages, Facebook messages, Snapchat messages, etc.
After the Supreme Court ordered that the case be heard quickly, the Kathmandu District Court set the date of the final hearing on July 32. However, on that date, an order was given to understand the evidence. After that, it was decided not to look at the payslip dated 10th August, and it was ordered to read the evidence again on the payslip dated 21st August.
If the final hearing is held on or after October 1st, it will be decided whether Sandeep will be acquitted or found guilty after the trial. If he is acquitted, the conditions and restrictions on him will be removed, if he is found guilty, he will go to jail to pay the sentence.
Discussion about this post