Kathmandu, 04 Aug: The Office of the Attorney General has decided to file an appeal against the verdict of the Janakpur High Court that acquitted Ram Bahadur Bomjon, who had taken on the appearance of an ascetic.
The Attorney General’s Office is preparing to file the appeal at the Supreme Court.
On Chaitra 6 (March 19, 2025), a bench of Judges Narishwar Bhandari and Khemraj Bhatt at the Janakpur High Court acquitted Bomjon of the charge of child sexual abuse.
Previously, on Ashar 17, 2081 (July 1, 2024), Judge Jiban Kumar Bhandari of the Sarlahi District Court had sentenced Bomjon to 10 years in prison and ordered him to pay 500,000 rupees in compensation to the victim.
However, the High Court overturned the District Court’s ruling and issued a verdict of acquittal.
After the full text of the High Court’s decision was made public, the Office of the Government Attorney in Janakpur initiated correspondence with the Office of the Attorney General to pursue an appeal.
Accordingly, on Shrawan 7 (July 22, 2025), a decision was made to appeal the verdict, according to Uddhav Prasad Pudasaini, spokesperson and joint attorney general at the Attorney General’s Office.
“The decision to appeal was made on Shrawan 7, as the High Court’s verdict was found to be flawed, and we are seeking to have it annulled and the original sentence enforced as per the charges,” he said. “While the District Court handed down a 10-year prison sentence and ordered 500,000 rupees in compensation, the High Court dismissed the charges altogether, stating that the statute of limitations had expired.”
After the High Court dismissed the case citing expiration of the statute of limitations, the Office of the Attorney General is preparing to present a counterargument based on the Children’s Act, 2075 (2018).
Clause 74 of that law deals with the statute of limitations. Sub-clause 2 states:
“In the case of offenses against a child, the statute of limitations for filing a case remains valid for one year from the date the child turns 18.”
In other words, for crimes committed against minors, legal proceedings can still be initiated up to a year after the victim turns 18.
The Office of the Attorney General argues that the High Court overlooked this provision when issuing its acquittal.
“This case was filed within the permitted timeframe. Therefore, the High Court’s decision is flawed,” said Joint Attorney General Uddhav Prasad Pudasaini. “There is a statutory window for filing appeals, and we will act within that period.”
Background of the Case:
Victim Gangamaya, who was 13 years old at the time, had gone to Bomjon’s ashram from Rautahat. The alleged rape occurred on the night of Shrawan 20, 2073 (August 4, 2016).
Two years later, in Bhadra 2075 (August/September 2018), Gangamaya came to Kathmandu and publicly revealed the incident during a press conference. Afterward, she approached the Metropolitan Crime Division (now known as the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office), but the police refused to file the case, citing that the statute of limitations had expired. At that time, rape complaints had to be registered within six months.
Just two days later, however, the Children’s Act, 2075 was enacted and certified. Based on this updated law, charges were later brought against Bomjon.
Pudasaini added that the Office of the Attorney General is also relying on Supreme Court Precedent No. 7432.
In that precedent, it was determined that:
“When an act is considered a criminal offense at the time it was committed and continues to be considered an offense under subsequent laws, applying the procedural provisions of the newer law does not negatively affect the defendant’s criminal liability.”
This precedent came from the Charimaya Tamang case, where she was trafficked to Mumbai in 2043 B.S. (1986 A.D.) by Khaiwa Syangtan and Uttam Syangtan (Lama), who sold her into prostitution for Rs. 35,000. Charimaya returned to Nepal 12 years later and filed a case against them.
Both the Makawanpur District Court and the Hetauda Appellate Court convicted the defendants.
When appealing to the Supreme Court, Uttam Syangtan argued that the complaint and charges should be dismissed as they were based on a law enacted after the crime occurred.
At the time of the incident, the Muluki Ain (General Code) was in effect, which prohibited human trafficking and prescribed up to 20 years in prison, with no statute of limitations for such crimes.
Later, a separate law on human trafficking, enacted in 2043 B.S., provided lesser penalties. Still, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions, determining that:
-
Both the original and subsequent laws defined the act as a crime with clear sentencing guidelines.
-
Since the newer law imposed a lighter penalty, it did not adversely affect the accused.
-
Procedural aspects like complaint filing, prosecution, and burden of proof are governed by the law effective at the time of trial.
Investigative Reporting & Further Allegations:
Following Gangamaya’s press conference, Setopati, a Nepali news outlet, began an in-depth investigation. Their findings suggested not only that Bomjon raped Gangamaya, but also that he had physically and mentally abused three female disciples (referred to as anis) from Nuwakot, Makawanpur, and Sarlahi, who later disappeared. Additionally, they uncovered allegations of a murder involving a male devotee from Makawanpur.
After these reports, the families of the missing anis—Rita Bot, Karma Tamang (Chunmaya), and Phoolmaya Rumba—filed complaints. The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) launched an investigation and registered a case. By that time, Bomjon had fled his ashram.
Eventually, on Poush 24, 2080 (January 8, 2024), police arrested him from his residence in Budhanilkantha, Kathmandu.
During the arrest, authorities seized foreign currencies worth Rs. 3,092,406 from 17 countries and Rs. 33.4 million in Nepali cash.
Following this, a damages claim case of Rs. 85.9 million was filed against him in Sarlahi District Court, which included seized assets such as his land worth Rs. 6.4 million in Chitwan and the confiscated cash.
On Jestha 13 (May 26, 2025), the Sarlahi District Court, under Judge Jiban Kumar Bhandari, ordered Bomjon to remain in custody for trial (pre-trial detention).
