Background
The case Triratna Chitrakar vs. Government of Nepal is cited in NKP (2066) No.5, page 784, Decision Number: 8148. It was heard by a joint bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal comprising Right Hon’ble Judges Balram K.C. and Gauri Dhakal. The verdict was delivered on 2065/7/6/4 (B.S.).
The case concerns serious charges of statutory rape and child abuse, and the related legal provisions considered include Sections 8, 10, 25, and 38 of the Evidence Act, 2031, along with various clauses from the Chapter on Rape and the Chapter on Punishment of the Muluki Ain 2020 BS.

Facts of the Case
The appeal was filed under Section 9 of the Judicial Administration Act, 2048, challenging the judgment of the Appeal Court, Hetauda, dated 2054/5/24. The matter came to light when an 11-year-old girl was found weeping and wandering alone on the road by the police. She was subsequently taken to Maiti Nepal, Hetauda branch, on 2061/9/29 for her protection and safety.

Maiti Nepal filed an FIR reporting that the girl, originally from Bara District, had been repeatedly raped over a period of three years by Triratna Chitrakar, in whose house she had been working as a domestic help. The girl provided a detailed statement to the police describing the sustained sexual assault and physical abuse by the alleged perpetrator.

A medical examination by the District Health Office, Makwanpur revealed several injuries, including : Bruises (nildam) on her left breast, nipple erected upward half an inch, hymen ruptured but not sure when it got ruptured, minor laceration on the lower part of the vulva.

Statements and Allegations
Statement of the minor girl before the police: describing the repeated sexual intercourse and other sexual activities committed by the house owner Triratna Chitrakar for last three years, besides also beating her often.
Lal Bahadur Lama, the girl’s father, stated that Chitrakar had taken his daughter under the pretense of providing her with an education and arranging her marriage but had instead abused her repeatedly.

In contrast, Triratna Chitrakar claimed the accusations were false and motivated by property disputes and greed of the alleged victim. He described the girl as someone who teased him and behaved provocatively infront of him to seduce him. In course of teasing sometimes she used to touch his penis. While cleaning utensils she used to do so exposing her breasts. She had the habit of pulling and pressing her own breasts. He also claimed he suffered from erectile dysfunction and could not have engaged in sexual activity.

The testimonies of local people contradicted Chitrakar’s claims, stating that the girl's physical condition clearly indicated prolonged abuse and assault.

Legal Question
1.    Whether the crime of the statutory rape had occurred or not?
2.    Whether the defendant should be punished under Numbers 1,3 and 10 of the Chapter on Rape of Muluki Ain 2020 ?

Lower Court Proceedings
The Makwanpur District Court, on 2063/6/2, convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. The Appeal Court, Hetauda, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 7 years on 2064/5/24 without providing substantial reasoning.

Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court rejected Chitrakar’s appeal, stating that the girl’s consent was irrelevant as she was under the age of 16, thus qualifying the act as statutory rape. The court emphasized that the physical and testimonial evidence clearly pointed to repeated sexual abuse.

The apex court found contradictions in Chitrakar’s statements. Although the defendant denied his statement made before the police, he, however, had accepted before the court that Question/Answer  Numbers 7 and 8 of that statement were true.  No. 7 described that “about 8/9 days ago when the girl was teasing him, he had pushed her making her fall down on the cot and the bruises on her breast were caused by her collision with the leg of the cot. And she had herself pulled her nipple which resulted in expansion of the size of her breast.”
The breasts of a woman are her private parts which always remain covered inside clothes. A woman does not show or expose them to others. How come the defendant  pointed out the bruises on her breast and even the size of her breast? That proved the allegation of the girl that the defendant used to suck her breasts.
While giving her testimony the victim had clearly stated both during examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination how  and how many times ‘uncle’ used to touch and prick her vagina with his fingers, how he used to conduct oral sex with her and how many times he raped her. When she cried as it pained her, he used to beat her. The minor described all this in her child like language.
The defendant’s plea of false and motivated charge was untenable as the minor was so innocent who did not even know what actually rape meant and he even did not know the actual terms used for male and female genitals. Such a minor cannot be believed to have any greed or anger.
The apex court also expressed disapproval of the way the trial was conducted in the open court and various unnecessary, offensive and obnoxious questions posed to the victim such as the size and erection of the penis of the defendant.
As the victim was a minor, such a case should have been tried in in-camera court (band ijlas). So the court ordered the Registrar of the Supreme Court to issue a circular to all courts for in-camera trial of rape cases from now onward.
The apex court censured the attitude of the Appeal Court judges who had reduced the imprisonment of the defendant by three years without any reason or rhyme or any rational. The Court observed that the judges perhaps suffered lack of knowledge about the sentencing policy.

Court’s Observations and Orders
The Supreme Court criticized the trial process for being conducted in open court despite the sensitivity of the matter. The justices expressed serious disapproval over offensive questions posed to the victim, including inquiries about the defendant’s genitalia.

The court ordered the Registrar to issue a circular mandating in-camera (closed court) proceedings for rape cases involving minors and women. It also censured the Appeal Court for arbitrarily reducing the sentence without justification, highlighting a lack of awareness regarding sentencing policy.

The court further analyzed the case in light of international human rights treaties, such as the ICCPR, Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and UN World Report on Violence Against Children.

International Precedents Cited
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635
To constitute the offence of rape penetration however slight is sufficient. The prosecutrix deposed about the performance of sexual intercourse by the appellant and her statement has remained un challenged in the cross examination. Neither the non rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on her private parts there of belies. The testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when we find that in the cross examination of the prosecutrix nothing has been brought out to doubt her verasity or to suggest as to why she would falsely implicate the appellant and put her own reputation at stake. The opinion of the Doctor that no rape appears to have been committed was based only on the absence of rupture of the hymen and injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The opinion can not throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. Besides the opinion of the Doctor appears to be based on no reason.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
The court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The evidence of a victim of sexual assaults stands almost on par with the evidence of an injured witness to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence which is not found to be self-inflicted is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit the evidence of a victim of a sexual offences entitled to great weight absence of corroboration notwithstanding.

सजाय तोक्दा विचार गर्नुपर्ने कुराहरूको बारेमा Halsbury's Law of England को खण्ड ४८३ मा उल्लेख भएको पाईन्छ । जस अनुसार सजाय तोक्दा —
The Supreme Court referenced Halsbury's Laws of England, outlining key factors for determining punishment, including:
a.  Its nature and circumstances in which it was committed.
b.  The degree of deliberation shown by the offender.
c.   The fact that the crime was a highly organized one in which a number of offenders took part.
d.   The provocation which the offender has received if the crime is one of violence.
e.   The antecedents of the offender up to the time of sentences his age and character, the fact that he is danger to the public and whether such danger is due to mental disturbance or immaturity and may decrease or disappear.
f.   Particular circumstances such as the   prevalence of a particular offence.
g.   The abuse of a position in a public service.

१७८० को R.V. Stratton को मुद्दामा वेलायतका High Court ले अपराधको मात्रा र अनुपातमा सजाय तोक्नु पर्छ भनी देहाय बमोजिम भनेको छ—  The fundamental rule of criminal judicature is that the measure of punishment should be in proportion to the malignity appearing in the intention of the offender.
त्यसैगरी सन १९०८ को R.V. Spencer को मुद्दामा वेलायतको उच्च अदालतले - A first hand offender may commit so henious an offence that a severe sentence is properly imposed भन्ने व्याख्या गरेको पाईन्छ ।

Conclusion
This case serves as a critical precedent in the legal treatment of child sexual abuse in Nepal. It highlights the importance of victim-centric judicial processes, the need for judicial sensitivity in rape cases, and the application of both domestic and international legal standards. The Supreme Court's decision not only upheld justice for the minor victim but also instigated systemic reforms by calling for in-camera trials and stricter sentencing practices in cases of sexual violence.