"Special Court's three judges have acquitted him, while the two justices of the SC have convicted him. This is entirely erroneous"
KATHMANDU, JUNE 8
In the case of former SP Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, who was acquitted by a three-judge bench of the Special Court, a division bench of the Supreme Court convicted him, and his review petition was rejected. Experts and legal practitioners have expressed that even an apex court verdict could be erroneous.
The Special Court acquitted Yadav on March 12, 2015, while following the appeal from CIAA, a division bench of Justices Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and Til Prasad Shrestha of the Supreme Court overturned his acquittal on December 20, 2022, sentencing him to four months in prison and a fine of Rs 97500.00.
"As the court orders and verdict are binding, I have honoured the court verdict and served the sentence and paid the fine but I disagree with the verdict."
He said he was indicted for corruption just because he exposed the wrong acts of his senior police officer when he was posted in Rupandehi. He said the division bench of the SC convicted him even though the person who was accused of bribing another police officer had told the court that he was innocent.
Advocate Arun Gyawali said that the corruption charges labelled against him by higher police authorities were a conspiracy to stop Yadav from reaching higher posts in Nepal Police. As a competent Madhesi police officer, he had the potential to rise to the highest rank. The Supreme Court has delivered different justice in similar cases. "This verdict is erroneous," he said.
Senior Superintendent of Police Sushil Yadav committed suicide as he was denied promotion and his junior was promoted to Deputy Inspector General. "Such discrimination has persisted for long," he added. "Candidates from Madhes have been strategically stopped so far."
Meanwhile, Mihir Thakur, a member of NHRC, shared that Rameshwar Yadav has submitted his case to NHRC. "Members of NHRC stated that they cannot do anything on this matter, which has already been decided by the apex court," he said, quoting commissioners of NHRC.
"However, I believe that even justice can commit injustices through rulings," he said. "There is eroding trust in the court in Nepal. I have found two errors by the Supreme Court in this case, and there have been several complaints with NHRC."
The Special Court's three judges have acquitted him, while the two justices of the SC have convicted him. This is entirely erroneous. "To deliver justice, there should have been at least five judges to hear his case," he said.
Another practice that led to a miscarriage of justice was that CIAA appealed to the Supreme Court despite the special court's acquittal verdict. "Nowhere in the world does the government file an appeal when a trial court acquits somebody," he said. Thakur himself is a former appellate court judge.
Citing an example of Ram Kumar Karki, who, after serving a seven-year jail sentence, was acquitted by the SC, Thakur said that Karki now had approached NHRC demanding compensation for the erroneous verdict by the lower courts.
Karki told NHRC, "I would commit suicide if they do not compensate for my loss."
Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi said that the Supreme Court is supreme, but it could do injustice. This is a grave judicial and lawful question for SC.
"Judges are no Gods; they are just like us, humans with biases, prejudice, and privilege," he said.
"In other countries, bar associations study verdicts, but here bar associations do not do that," he added.
Similarly, former justice Lokendra Malik said that politically appointed people will be loyal to the political people and parties. "So, flaws in justice are natural," he said.
Stating that this particular case is extremely important, former justice of the Supreme Court Girish Chandra Lal said that in the case of Rameshwar Yadav there are no legal remedies; however, I still hope there is a possibility for justice. "Because justice has been ruled just on the basis of co-accused, which could be entirely erroneous. Thus, with strong evidence, this particular case can still be filed at the Supreme Court invoking writ jurisdiction. At least for legal justice, if it is not correct, the apex court's reliability, credibility, and confidence will be eroded, and public trust will fade from the justice system," he said.
"Has SC put its credibility and principles of justice at stake? This decision has been delivered as due to a lack of inclusivity in the judicial system. This must be questioned. This case will set a precedent. "
