Kathmandu, August 24
The rape and murder of a three-year-old girl in Bara has shocked and angered the country, with widespread demands for strict legal action against the perpetrator.
But a video showing a minor arrested in connection with the case giving a statement while handcuffed has raised serious questions over police investigation, child rights, privacy and responsible information sharing.
In the video, which has gone viral on social media, the alleged offender is seen speaking about the incident while handcuffed. Police personnel can also be seen in the footage, while some individuals appear to be recording the statement on mobile phones.
The release of such a sensitive video during an ongoing investigation is not a routine matter. As the case has yet to reach a final court verdict, the circulation of footage that could reveal the identity of the minor could affect the investigation, judicial process and the child and his family.
The seriousness of the crime makes the need for a sensitive investigation and responsible flow of information even more important. Instead, the public release of the minor’s statement has itself become a serious concern.
Protection must come first, whether a child is a victim or accused
Psychiatrist Dr Sagun Ballav Pant says children require protection whether they are victims or accused of a crime.
According to him, releasing sensitive footage in a way that reveals a child’s face, name, voice or other identifying details goes against the basic principles of child protection.
This is particularly concerning in cases involving sexual violence and serious crimes, where the release of footage can cause further trauma to the victim’s family.
The accused minor and his family could also face long-term psychosocial consequences.
“Confidential material related to an investigation and judicial process should not be made public in this way. Spreading such material simply for views, likes or publicity is harmful to society,” Pant said.
He said repeated exposure to violent videos could increase fear, anxiety, insecurity, curiosity and psychological stress among children.
Children may also search for such content out of curiosity and experience psychological consequences from watching it. Such material can also increase anger, anxiety, suspicion, insecurity and sleep problems among parents and members of the wider public, Pant said.
Police investigation could also be affected
The unauthorised release of information that should remain confidential during an investigation does not only affect the victim and accused. It could also create problems for investigators, experts say.
“At present, this is still at the preliminary investigation stage. If the investigation takes a different direction tomorrow, the police could also face difficulties,” former Nepal Police DIG Hemant Malla said.
He said the public release of the accused’s statement could lead to questions over whether the investigation had been influenced.
“Technology is available to record statements. But it is not meant only to keep a record in case the accused says something different later. Such material should not be made public under any circumstances. This is plainly wrong,” Malla said.
Lawyer Rojina Shrestha also said confidential videos of this nature should not be made public.
Since the accused is a minor and the case has not yet been finally decided, publicly releasing his statement could affect his privacy, family life and future, she said.
There is also a risk that once someone is publicly labelled guilty on social media, public opinion could become stronger than the evidence-based assessment that must take place in court.
“Being accused and being proven guilty are not the same thing. The court must decide on the basis of evidence. Creating an environment where someone is declared guilty on social media before that process is a challenge to the justice system,” Shrestha said.
She said protecting privacy is not merely an ethical issue but an important part of children’s rights.
Consent does not mean unlimited publication
Even if a child is willing to speak or a family member agrees to a recording, that does not automatically mean the material can be widely published on social media, Shrestha said.
The child’s age, understanding and circumstances must be considered when determining whether consent is meaningful, she said.
In cases involving violence, sexual offences and judicial investigations, the best interests of the child must remain the priority.
Once such footage is circulated online, it becomes extremely difficult to control who uses it, how long it remains available and what impact it may have on the child’s future.
Pant said removing the sensitive video immediately, restricting its reach and discouraging further sharing should be priorities.
Because it is difficult to completely control a video once it has spread online, efforts should also be made to stop its redistribution through pages, groups and accounts, he said.
He also called for action against the deliberate circulation of sensitive material.
“Citizens need factual information on matters of public concern. But releasing confidential investigation material and creating a sensation is not the right to information. Protecting children from further pain and psychological harm is the responsibility of the state, media and society,” Pant said.
He added that the dignity and privacy of the deceased victim’s family must also be protected, while the age, psychological development, privacy and future of an accused minor must be considered from a child-rights perspective.
A viral video may fuel anger, but it does not deliver justice
The circulation of footage following a serious crime can quickly intensify public anger. People begin watching, sharing and commenting on the video in the name of finding out what happened.
But public anger and justice are not the same thing.
When opinions are formed on the basis of incomplete or unverified information, public outrage can grow and create pressure for punishment outside the legal process.
This can undermine evidence-based investigation and judicial proceedings.
Investigating crime is the responsibility of the police and judicial authorities. Creating a situation where social media crowds effectively deliver a verdict is not a healthy practice of justice.
‘An accused’s statement is not viral content’
Umesh Shrestha, chairman of the Press Council Nepal, said there should be no doubt that the truth must come out in serious crimes such as rape and murder and that anyone found guilty must face punishment according to law.
But publicly releasing a minor’s statement before a court has delivered its verdict is not justice, he said.
Journalism and information sharing also require restraint, sensitivity and adherence to professional standards. Regardless of the seriousness of an incident, the rights and human dignity of both the victim and the accused child cannot be ignored, Shrestha said.
“The victim’s suffering is not content. An accused’s statement is not viral material. Justice is needed, but through the justice system. Truth is needed, but with sensitivity. News is needed, but without compromising human dignity,” he said.
‘Do not forget responsibility in the race for likes and views’
Medical sociologist Madhusudan Subedi said the expansion of social media means almost everyone now has access to a camera and many people have begun producing and distributing content similar to journalism.
But the competition for likes, shares and views has encouraged people to overlook the social consequences of what they publish, he said.
This is particularly dangerous when dealing with sensitive issues such as rape, suicide and caste or communal tensions, Subedi said.
He urged people to ask themselves: “How would we think about this if it had happened to our own family?”
The fact that a piece of content goes viral does not prove that it is true, he said. The number of people sharing something cannot be treated as verification.
People should therefore rely on official information and facts obtained from credible sources when dealing with sensitive cases.
Those who receive such footage can choose not to share or download it for redistribution and can report it to the relevant social media platform, helping prevent further circulation.
Privacy is needed for both victim and accused
Child rights activist Tilottam Paudel said the matter should be taken even more seriously if the video was released by a government agency or someone working within the state mechanism.
Nepal’s Constitution, the concept of child-friendly justice, international child rights commitments and laws concerning children all place importance on children’s privacy and best interests, he said.
While demanding justice for the deceased girl is essential, violating the privacy and rights of another minor in the process is not a solution, Paudel said.
“Violating the privacy of an accused minor in the name of delivering justice to the victim is not a solution. The investigation must be impartial, scientific and child-friendly,” he said.
He called for effective mechanisms to ensure prompt investigation, legal proceedings and privacy protection in cases involving children.
Questions also raised over police investigation
The incident has raised questions not only for social media users but also for the investigating authorities.
If statements and evidence involving an arrested minor are supposed to remain confidential, questions remain over how the video was recorded and subsequently released.
Police have already arrested the police officer who allegedly recorded the video.
Pant said the release of confidential material during an investigation is a sensitive issue from both child protection and investigative perspectives.
In cases involving minors, investigators must give priority to the best interests and privacy of children, he said.
Paudel said responsibility must also be established if the footage was leaked by someone within the government system.
The leakage of sensitive investigative material could affect future investigations as well. Investigating agencies are responsible for protecting evidence, maintaining the confidentiality of statements and preventing unnecessary public pressure on the investigation.
Seeking justice without causing further harm
The alleged crime against the three-year-old girl is an extremely serious and painful incident. There have been widespread demands for the perpetrator to face strict punishment under the law.
The victim’s family deserves justice and the incident must be investigated fairly. The issue has also been raised in Parliament.
But even after a victim’s death, her dignity and her family’s privacy must be protected.
Likewise, protecting the privacy and rights of an accused minor does not mean minimising the crime or granting the accused impunity.
It means ensuring that the investigation is impartial, the truth is established through evidence and anyone found guilty is punished according to law.
According to Pant, the demand for justice and the protection of child rights are not contradictory.
A demand for justice for the victim does not require an accused minor to be publicly exposed or his video circulated. The search for justice should not result in damage to another child’s mental health, privacy and future.
Paudel said protecting the rights of both children — the victim and the accused — is the state’s responsibility.
Protecting the privacy of an accused minor is not about giving the person impunity, but about upholding the basic principles of child-friendly justice.
Experts say justice does not mean declaring someone guilty on social media. It means establishing the truth through evidence, punishing the guilty according to law and providing dignity and protection to the victim and her family.
The central question, therefore, is not whether the perpetrator should be punished. It is whether, in seeking justice, society is creating another lifelong source of harm by publicly exposing and stigmatising a child who has only been accused.
“This is a serious matter. Those responsible must also face action,” former DIG Malla said.
