Kathmandu, Nepal, February 25, 2026: The Supreme Court of Nepal has established a landmark legal precedent by ruling that a perpetrator’s status as a minor does not exempt them from the obligation to pay financial compensation to their victims. A joint bench of Justices Sapna Pradhan Malla and Balkrishna Dhakal delivered the verdict, emphasizing that in the criminal justice system, the victim’s right to relief and justice must take precedence over the age of the offender. The court clarified that while the law provides leniency in sentencing for minors to encourage reform, this "criminal immunity" does not extend to "civil liability," meaning the offender or the state must ensure the victim is financially compensated for the trauma endured.
The case dates back to June 2017 in Kapilvastu, where a 13-year-old boy was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. While the District Court and the High Court of Tulsipur had sentenced the boy to six months in a juvenile correction home, both courts had refused to grant compensation. They argued that because the defendant was a minor without an independent income, he could not bear the financial burden of compensation. The Supreme Court, however, labeled this a "misinterpretation of the law," stating that punishment is a penalty for the crime, whereas compensation is a restorative right for the victim, and the two must be treated as separate legal entities.
In its detailed 40-page judgment, the Supreme Court argued that denying relief to a child survivor simply because her attacker was also a child would constitute "added injustice" and violate the constitutional guarantee of equality. The court warned that such exemptions could lead to a culture of impunity and social distortion. Invoking the international legal principle of Parens Patriae—which identifies the State as the ultimate guardian of those who cannot protect themselves—the bench ruled that the survivor cannot be sent away empty-handed. If a minor offender is incapable of paying, the responsibility to provide a "healing touch" shifts to the family's assets or the State itself.
To ensure the actual recovery of the 50,000-rupee compensation awarded to the victim, the Supreme Court outlined a three-tier mechanism. The first priority is to recover the amount from any property registered in the minor's name. If no such assets exist, the court directed that the compensation be deducted from the offender’s future share of his parents' ancestral property. In cases where neither option is viable, the court mandated that the government’s ‘Victim Relief Fund’ must provide the payment. This ruling reinforces a victim-centric approach in Nepal, ensuring that the path to rehabilitation for a young offender does not come at the cost of the survivor’s right to reparations.
