SC reopens dacoity case against APF men

Kathmandu, February 8:

Overturning the verdicts of lower courts, the Supreme Court has decided to prosecute four Armed Police Force personnel in a six-year-old dacoity case.

A division bench of justices Bala Ram KC and Prakash Osti passed the decision on Friday, issuing a ruling that it would review the lower courts’ verdicts against Ati Raj Tamang, Chandra Bahadur Thapa, Jit Man Rai and Shiv Bahadur Chauhan. The bench decided to review the case citing the ground that the lower courts had given clean chits to the accused by defining the case as a theft case.

“Since the bench has decided to open the case, both parties in the case would be summoned soon,” Hemanta Rawal, assistant spokesperson of the Supreme Court, said.

Sub-inspector Rai, head constables Tamang and Chauhan and constable Rai were charged for their involvement in larceny of Rs 4 lakhs from Resunga Guest House at Mahabouddha, Kathmandu, in 2002. The APF personnel — deputed at APF headquarters Halchowk — had taken away the amount and a mobile set from the guest house by threatening its owner Lilamani Kharel with a gun. Kharel, however, took on the cops and retrieved Rs 1 lakh.

Stating that the lower courts’ interpretation of the case were inappropriate, the bench said the case needed to be reviewed by the apex court.

The accused were initially charged of larceny as per the FIR filed by Kharel. However, Kathmandu District Court and Patan Appellate Court later defined the case as a theft and refused to impose punishment. After the lower courts’ verdicts, the case was forwarded to the SC for revision.

“The case needs to be reopened because it was defined as a theft case in an improper way. It is a case of dacoity as police personnel had misused their power by stealing cash and property by threatening its owner using a gun. The lower courts’ verdicts go against Section 27 of Government Case Act, 1992; Section 1 and 6 of Theft Chapter of Country Code, 1963; and Section 12 (1) (A) of the Judicial Administration Act, 1991,” the bench stated.