LEGAL NEWS WEBSITE FROM NEPAL

An Account of History of Nepalese Criminal Law before Codification of 1910 BS

२०७७ भदौ २७ गते ४:२५ Lexnepal

Bibek Kumar Paudel*

The Gopal dynasty was first ruling dynasty of Nepal followed by Mahishpal dynasty. The history of Nepal is dark during these two ruling dynasties, therefore, criminal law of the then Nepal is unknown. After Mahispal, Kiarat, Lichchhavi, Malla and Shah ruled Nepal respectively before codification of first unified Code of Nepal. The period after Codification is the reign of Ranas, however, they ruled Nepal not as the King but as the Maharaja Prime Minister by enthroning Shah dynasty as rubber stamp after 1903 BS. The criminal law of after codification is quite clear. But the history of criminal law of Nepal before codification is dim. However, some regional and local codes were prepared and applied by different rulers. Here, an effort, to give a brief history, is made in this article during the period of Kirat to codification of Muluki Ain, 1910 BS.     

Kirat Period   

The period before Lichchhavi was the Period of Kirata, who ruled Nepal[1]. The first reference of them occurred in about 7 century BC but the early sixth century BC is considered as beginning of Kirata Rule in Nepal[2]. According to Baburam Acharya, the Kirat period was of 800 years since 550 BC to 250 BC[3]. According to old Kirati religious text, Mundhum, they ruled the Kathmandu valley until the second century A. D[4].

Crimes

Crimes were not defined but enumerated during this period. According to Mundhum, a Kirati Ved; sedition, murder, incest, theft, looting, quarreling, cheating, greediness, lying, slander, arrogance, vagrancy, prostitution, Jari (wedding others wife) and adultery, violence, instigate to people, injustice to orphan and poor widows were considered as crime[5]. All these crimes were the traditional crimes continued with the existence of human civilization. Offences relating to property are newer than other crimes like crime against human body and sexual crimes since the concept of private property came in existence later.

Crimes, prevalent during this period, can be classified in the following different head. 

  • Crime against Human Body
  • Crime against Property 
  • Sexual Crimes 
  • Crime against State and Public Justice
  • Other less serious crimes 

Punishment

The judicial affairs closely connected with maintenance of peace and security. Violence was considered as a sin. Hence, creators of violence were punished harshly[6]. The criminals causing death to others were given capital punishment. The principle of punishment of Kirati was based on eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth principle. To deter the offender from repeating the misdemeanor, they were forced to take vow of God, promising not to repeat the crime. Rebels were exiled from the country[7]. An offender of incest was converted in slave or expelled from the society and forced to live in a cave. A thief was punished by forcing him to keep his hands in the boiling water. Wrongdoer (Jar) or adulterer could be beheaded by victim (Sadhu) if he is found otherwise wrongdoer’s property could be confiscated by the King to be given to victim (Sadhu) as the cost of his marriage. The offender of sedition was exiled during this period. But the quantum of punishment was not fixed and it was considered that all of the criminals are hatred by the God[8].  The imprisonment or incarceration at the cost of state fund did not exist. However, isolation of criminal in cave was a common form of punishment which could be considered as one of the forms of incarceration.

Punishment, existed during this period, can be classified as under:

  • Capital Punishment
  • Corporal Punishment
  • Banishment
  • Denunciation
  • Downgrading as slave
  • Revenge by an Individual
  • Confiscation 
  • Fine

However, accused was not punished until he is found guilty in alleged crime[9]

Lichchhavi Period 

The Kirat dynasty was followed by the Lichchhabi; they ruled Nepal from third century AD (250AD) to eighth century AD[10]. They migrated from Vaishali of Northern India and melted with local people. They called Lichchhavis as they had passionate love for colors and keen sense of beauty. They were the first historical dynasty of Nepal[11]. With the rise of Lichchhavis in Nepal, the kings started introducing Hinduism based social system[12].  It is not clear when and how Lichchhavi dynasty came to an end[13]?

Crimes 

In this period, the concept of Panchaparadh existed; however, it was not defined. Various crimes were considered as Panchaaparadh. Some experts are of opinion that murder, rebel against king or state, theft, adultery, giving company to them or any one of them were considered as five major crimes popularly also known as Panchkhat[14]. Panchaparadh was defined in Dharmasastra. Killing a Brahamin, drinking prohibited alcohol, stealing the gold of Brahamin, having sexual relation with teaher’s wife and to be associated with any one of them up to one year were defined as Panchkhat[15]. Homicide was also considered as one of the grievous crimes and it was divided as an intentional and accidental crime and it was further subdivided as justifiable and unintentional homicide. Intentional homicide was one of the heinous crimes of the then society[16]. Besides, hurt, violence, prostitution, rape, arson, false weights were also considered crimes in this period[17]. Sexual offences were one of the five grievous crimes.  The sexual relation with any other woman except his own married wife was an offence. Thus, sexual relation with any either matured or immature or married and unmarried woman with or without consent of her was punishable[18].  Giving scents, flowers, ornaments, clothes as present and alluring by food and drink to woman was also considered as crime. Likewise, sitting together in the same seat in a solitary place with mutual contact and also pulling each other’s hair was also known as complete adultery[19]. The nature of sexual offence was also determined by the caste of the man and woman. Sexual intercourse with a woman of higher caste by a man of lower caste was known as Pratiloma and with a woman of lower cast woman by a man of higher caste was known as Anuloma. However, bigamy by male was not punishable.

The crimes, existed during Lichchhabi Period, can be classified as mentioned below[20]

  • Offence against King and Public Justice (Treason, Non-payment of Toll, False Weights)
  • Offence against human body (Homicide)
  • Offence against property (Robbery, Theft, Burglary, Pick-pocketing, looting etc.)
  • Sexual offence (Sexual intercourse with a woman of higher caste (Pratiloma) and Lower cast (Anuloma), incest, prostitution, adultery, rape etc.)
  • Offence relating to religion (Sin) 

Punishment                                           

During this period, the punishments were based on Hindu Religious text. Capital punishment was frequently meted out for grievous types of crime like treason, murder, sexual offences, theft and so on. Exile could also be meted out in such heinous crimes, if criminal could not be sentenced to death due to religious cause since Brahamin and female were not punished to death. Larceny and adultery, being panchaparadh, were given very harsh punishment like capital punishment, however, adulteress was deprived of the right of inheritance called Mapchok Adhikara and she was punished only by mutilation like cutting nose, ears, braided hair since female could not be sentenced to death[21]. Punishment to the adulterer was very much determined by the willingness and unwillingness of woman. If a man committed adultery without will of a maid he would be sentenced to death. But if maiden was willing, only light punishment would be meted out to him[22]. But, it is not clear that whether individual revenge by a victim was in existence in case of adultery (Jar Katne) or not?

Corporal and pecuniary punishment would not be imposed for religious crime. But Prayaschita i.e. expiation was considered sufficient aspunishment for religious crime[23]. Same way, warning, denunciation, and monetary fine were also imposed to the law breaker.

There were three following degrees or types of crimes on which basis punishment was determined[24]:

  1. Prathama sahasa
  2. Madhyama sahasa
  3. Uttama sahasa  

Sahasa was not defined; however, Mnau had described sahas. According to him-

Prathama sahasa = crime with punishment of 250 Pan

Madhyama sahasa = crime with punishment of 500 Pan

Uttama sahasa =  crime with punishment of 1000 Pan 

 Generally, four major types of punishment were in existence. They were[25]:

  • Bagdanda- Warning
  • Dhikdanda- Denunciation
  • Dhanadanda or Arthadanda- Fine
  • Badhdanda- Capital and Corporal Punishment

But it is not clear that which of the aforementioned punishment had to be inflicted for what types of crimes.

Punishment can roughly be summarized as under:  

  • Capital Punishment
  • Corporal Punishment
  • Exile
  • Denunciation
  • Downgrading in lower caste
  • Feeding inedible thing
  • Forcing to wear dirty clothes and disgusting things
  • Confiscation
  • Fine 
  • Expiation
  • Warning 

Hence, it appears that the Lichchhabi’s criminal justice system was not reformatory but totally punitive so as to deter the others. So, even the family members of the criminal were punished. Hence, it can be said that the criminal law of Lichchhabi’s was based on Dharmasastra. Punishment could be varied on the basis of severity of crime, intention, place, time, power of criminal, age of criminal, nature of crime, economic condition of crime. The modern form of punishment i.e. imprisonment was not in existence.  

Malla Period   

By 1200 A.D., another new ruling dynasty of the Mallas emerged, when Ari Malla (1257-1283 BS) started to rule Nepal[26]. They ruled until 1769, when Prithvi Nayaran Conquered the Nepal Valley. In fact the history of Nepal from 1200 A.D. to the 18th century was the history of the Newar under Mallas. Until the arrival of the Gorkha King, the Malls ruled the Kathmandu valley which was cut up into four kingdoms viz. Kantipur, Patan, Bhadgaun and Banepa. The period of Jayasthiti Malla (1437B.S.) to Jaya Prakash Malla (1825 B.S.) is considered the period of Malla’s in Nepalese legal history since there was no considerable contribution of other Malla Kings before and after Jayasthiti Malla, however, Mahindra Malla (1617 BS – 1636 BS) had also made a code which complete text is not found[27]. When Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kathmandu Valley in 1825, Malla period came to an end. 

Crimes 

During the Malla, period a written codified law was introduced. The Malla King Jyasthiti Malla, who ruled since 1437 BS to 1452 BS, commissioned the committee composed of Pundits for the preparation of a code based on Hindu religious text. The so prepared code by eminent Pundits is called Manavnyayashastra based on Hindu religious text. This code is highly influenced by Naradasmriti alongwith other Smirtis like Manusmriti and Yagyabalkyasmriti. It is almost pervasive because it covers various aspect of law. A commentary on this code was also prepared in Nepal Bhasa at that time. Sexual offence was one of the heinous crimes during this period. Sexual offence, generally, includes incest, other sexual offences like rape and adultery, unnatural sexual offences including sodomy, bestiality, having sexual intercourse during monthly period, having sexual intercourse in improper place, masturbation, passing urine in the female organ.

It had incorporated some crimes which were based on religion. The offences, existed during Mall Period, can be listed out as the follows:

  • Offences against the King (treason, espionage)
  • Causing harm to the capital and national property
  • Filling baseless suits
  • Misappropriation of property (Misappropriation of Stridhan)
  • Breach of contract
  • Non-payment of custom or tax
  • Using false weights and measurements
  • Usury (Charging excessive interest on loan)
  • Non-payment of debt
  • Crime against Human Body (Homicide, assault)
  • Cow slaughter
  • Abuse and Slander
  • Offences against property (theft, burglary, cheating and fraud)
  • Gambling and betting
  • Sexual offences
  • Offences against religion

Punishment

 Capital punishment was common in this period; however, Brahimins were not sentenced to death due to religious cause. Brahamin were shaved and exiled if they committed capital crime. The system of beheading of adulterer by the husband was also common except in Newar Community. Corporal punishment was also another common punishment. In some crimes, criminal was feed inedible things and forced to put on untouchable things. The modern form of prison system did not exist; however, some events of imprisonment are mentioned. Fine instead of imprisonment for those who afford to pay fine and imprisonment for fine to those who could not pay fine was also one of types of punishment[28].  Social denunciation, downgrading in lower caste and expiation in religious crimes did also exist.

  • Capital Punishment 
  • Corporal Punishment
  • Individual revenge (Jar Katne)
  • Confiscation of Property
  • Fine
  • Degradation (Exhibition in public place, shaving of head, downgrading of caste) 
  • Prayaschit   
  • Exile    

Shah Period before Unification

Regime of Ram Shah   

Ram Shah was the fourth King of Shah Dynasty. He ruled Gorkha Kingdom, while Malla Kings were ruling Kathmandu Valley, and his name spread far and wide for his sense of justice and judicial system beyond his Kingdom. During his reign, he promulgated many edicts known as Sthities. However, the Hindu religious scriptures were the main basis of his legal and judicial reforms. During his time, the Dharmadhikara was the main judicial official. Only a Brahmin Pundit could become a principal judicial authority (Dharmadhikara). Kind himself, however, heard cases of serious nature and had the responsibility of supervising the lower judicial institutions. Ram Shah’s reform was directed especially towards the betterment of administration of justice. He was so popular for his justice system, therefore, the bordering states used to refer complicated disputes to his court. The famous expression is still in public, i. e. nyaya napaya Gorkha janu which meant that ‘go to Gorkha for justice’ or ‘if you don’t get justice, go to Gorkha’.     

Crimes

Traditional types of crimes existed like murder, sexual crimes like adultery, incest, having sexual relation with upper or lower cast, crimes against king and state, crimes against property including theft, burglary and crime against religion. Witchcraft was also punishable. Felling  trees around water source i.e. public tap was forbidden. Excessive interest on loan and disregard cast system was also punishable. To participate in reconstruction of inland waterway (canal) was considered public duty and breach of such duty was punishable[29].   

Punishment

Ram Shah introduced new theory of punishment to reform the criminal justice system by not punishing the family members of a criminal if they did not take part in the crime. He had prepared a code (Sthiti) which had the provision ‘Jasko pap usako gardhan’ which reflected the modern concept of punishment. The terms pap (sin) refers to crime and gardhan refers to punishment which could be extended to capital punishment. It shows that only criminal who indulged in criminal activities would only be punished and his family members won’t be punished who are involved in criminal activities. Previously, family members of offenders were also punished. This is one of his major reforms which established doctrine of personal penal liability in Gorkha. Physical (capital and corporal) and pecuniary (fine up to the confiscation of the entire property) punishments were main forms of punishment. Banishment and social denunciation also existed. Chautariyas, Bhaibhars, Sagotri, Sanyasi (hermit), Bairagi (sant-mahants), Bhat, old-aged, juveniles, women and Brahmins were not sentenced to death even if they committed capital crimes and other heinous crimes. They could be banished and male criminals were shaved their heads[30]. These types of punishment were based on Dharmashastra.  

The punishment was based on the degree of the criminality and justice was done by King and by his successors, upon touching the stone (taking oath to do justice). Filling a false case against witchcraft was punishable by fine with Rs. 5 and persons guilty of witchcraft were banished.  Fine was common for less serious crime. Royal family members would not be sentenced to death for murder rather they would be banished from the country, however, people of Khas, Newar, Magar and other communities committed capital crimes would be sentenced to death with confiscation of whole of the property[31]. Ram shah had a treaty with Siddhinarsingha Malla to exchange the successors in case they do not have their own successors. He also invited some tradesman from Patan and they were given special facilities and pre-pardoned (declared not to punish) them from seven offences[32].

During his reign, identity of crime, mens rea, degree of crime, time period, strength, age, job, economic status of criminal etc. were taken into consideration while making judgment[33]. This was based on Yagyabalkyasmriti. Criminals were punished by the King impartially and the concept of equality before law was accepted. Besides, the provision of Sukaraniti, which believed that crime dies with criminal, was well recognized[34].  Criminal justice system of Ram Shah was based on Dharmashastra.

Shah Period after Unification

The Shah period after unification can be termed as the pre Rana Period. The judicial system of this period has its origin in the legal contribution of Ram Shah, Prithivi Narayan Shah and the legal and judicial systems thereafter i.e. before the advent of the Ranas in the Political scene. The unification of Nepal did not bring about any considerable change in system of the country[35]. Up to the enactment of Muluki Ain, 1910 BS; Nepalese legal system was based on Dharmashastra.  However, just before 31 years of the enactment of Muluki Ain, 1910; Colonial Ujir Singh Thapa had drafted a code in 1879 BS but it did not come into force. In fact it was a training manual for Military and Civilian personnel, which contained some legal provisions including crime and punishment[36].       

Prithibi Narayan Shah and onwards 

Prithvi Narayan Shah not only unified the country geographically but also contributed in the legal unification of the nation. In fact, he had hidden interest in the judicial unification since it was used as a medium for achieving the trust and the confidence of the people of subjugated states. He also delegated the judicial authority to Dharmadhikara on the grounds that King as warrior was unsuitable for the sacred work of doing justice. Nevertheless he was the source of all law and justice; he expanded his judicial system over the subjugated regions. He did not contribute much more time in making laws due to his campaigning in unification of the country; however, it is discovered by the fact that he had promulgated the Code (Ain) in 1825 BS just after conquering Kathmandu Valley. The provisions of the then Muluki Ain, 1910 BS relating to confiscation of property of offenders of crime against state, proved the existence of the code of Prithvi Nayarna Shah[37]. The code, nevertheless, is not available yet; thus, it is unknown that what had been provided by the code regarding crime and punishment. Prithvi Narayan Shah had expressed that I have studied the codes of King Ram Shah, King Jayasthiti Mall and King Mahindra Malla; I had also aspiration to prepare such a code for Nepal of twelve thousand if God allow[38]. This expression also supported his enthusiasm to make the law for unified Nepal. Some writers are with opinion that the Muluki Ain, 1910 BS was prepared on the basis of the code of Prithvi Narayan Shah[39].

Crimes

Prithvi Narayan Shah had sharply denounced bribery and insisted to punish criminals rigorously. He instructed to punish them with death penalty and confiscation of property.   

During his regime, crime against peace was a serious type of crime. Bribery was one of the heinous types of crime[40]. Other crimes which were considered as crime before his regime also continued in this period. Panchkhat was also accepted as a serious crime, however, it is not clear what types of crimes were fall under this category. Traditional types of crime like murder, bribery, sexual offences, crime against peace, crime against King and State, crime against property like looting, theft were major crimes. Getting married with widow sister in law by Brahamins was prohibited. Taking alcohol by upper caste people (tagadhari) was also punishable[41]. The offence of espionage against state during war time was serious crime[42]. Gambling the taking marijuana had also been banned, during his regime[43]

Rana Bahadur Shah              

Ran Bahadur Shah got married with a Brahamin widow of Tirhut, while she came to Pashupati in a pilgrim. She gave birth of Girwan Yuddha Bikram Shah. Rana Bahadur Shah had taken a decision to enthrone to his 18 months years old son Girwan. The Brahamins of Kathmandu valley showed their dissatisfaction by sitting outside the palace (Dharna). In order to prevent such eventualities, Rana Bahadur Shah had issued special edict. This can be called a code of Rana Bahadur Shah, however, which had no legal value since it was never been practiced.  This edict prohibited such attempts by Brahamins. It had provided that if Brahamins did so, they would be expelled along with their families, before banishment their hands and legs would be put in iron chain, their faces and checks would be branded and they would be forced to take pork and wine. Their entire property would be confiscated[44].   

After unification to the promulgation of Muluki Ain, 1910; human conduct which were prohibited by the state were based on Dharmashastra and edict of the king. Such crimes can be divided in the following heads[45]:

  • Crime against the king and state including betrayal to country, failure to report crime to government, escaping from prison, treaty offence  
  • Crime against human body including murder, cow slaughter, abortion, assaulting or injuring person, girls trafficking 
  • Crime against human property including theft, burglary, cheating, fraud, setting fire
  • Sexual offences including adultery, incest, sexual abuse with animal, homosexuality, inter-caste sexual relations,
  • Offence against religion
  • Witchcraft
  • Defilement (caste adulteration- accepting water or rice from low caste people by high caste people)
  • Castration of Bulls   

Punishment

The judicial system with the king at the apex could award various types of punishments to the criminals like confiscation of the whole property, banishment of the whole family, degradation of the whole family by putting them lowest caste, maiming of limbs, death by cutting the throat.  

Penal system, during the regime of Prithvi Narayan Shah, is not clear. The objective of punishment was based deterrence and such deterrence was specific and general. He instructed for serious types of punishment for bribery with death sentence and confiscation of property[46]. Pundits were empowered to determine the punishment on the basis of Dharmashastra, therefore, fine and corporal punishment was determined by Dharmadhikari on the basis of Shastra[47]. Capital punishment was prevalent for murderer, however, Brahamins, Sanyasi, Jogi, Bairagi and females were not sentenced to death, therefore, they were punished other than capital punishment. A royal family member had to be banished from the Kingdom if he was found guilty of murder. Adulterers were cut by the victim in case of Jari, however, those people, who could not be punished death, were banished. In such cases, victim had the right to claim marriage expenses form adulterer. Other types of sexual offenders were enslaved and they would be sold and money gained by selling slaves was deposited to the court. The forefinger of thieve was cut. Brahamins were banished and degraded with shaving head if they committed the sexual offence with widow sister in law[48]. The body of offenders of espionage against state during war time was cut in two pieces[49]. The property of the offenders, who committed the crime against state by helping rivalries during war time, was confiscated[50].

The traditional punishment system was adopted as promulgated by Ram Shah and Jayasthiti Malla.

During the Shah period, imprisonment was also a form of punishment, however, it is not clear that whether regular types of prison system existed or not? Some facts show existence of imprisonment as a form of punishment. During the reign of Pratap Singh Shah, Bahadur Shah and his uncle were imprisoned in the charge of conspiracy against King and he was exiled subsequently to India. During the reign of Rana Bahadur Shah, Bahadur Shah was again exiled to India in the same charge[51].  Rajendra Laxmi Shah was also imprisoned by Bahadur Shah in the charge of conspiracy against state. Bhimsen Thapa was imprisoned in charge of poisoning the six month old prince. 

During the Shah period; before the codification of Muluki Ain, 1910 BS following forms of punishment existed.

  • Capital Punishment
  • Corporal punishment 
  • Fine
  • Imprisonment
  • Banishment
  • Degradation
  • Denunciation
  • Enslavement

Conclusion

During and before the Shah Period, traditional types of crimes were recognized as crime on the basis of Dharmashstra. Sexual offences were also considered as a serious crime. Getting married with lower caste people by so called upper caste people was also considered as serious types of crime. Any sexual relation out of marriage with or without consent was also criminalized. Some modern concept of criminal law and justice like equality before law, crime dies with criminal, exemption from criminal liability for juveniles were recognized to some extent. Being juvenile, Prithvi Narayan Shah was only warned in charge of forcefully taking sugarcane from the private land of the people since juveniles were only warned even in case of crime committed[52]. Crime against King and State was capital crime. Royal family members could be inflicted corporal punishment in crime against King and State. Prithvi Narayan Shah had warned his own brother, Mohaddam Kirti Shah, to pluck the latter’s eye if he would be involved against interest of the state[53]

The punishment system of Shah Period was both retributive and punitive; however, penal policy before that period was retributive. Penal policy was based on the caste status, gender status and religious status of criminals. Personal revenge was allowed. It was believed that the punishment should have the general and specific deterrent effects. The reformatory approach of punishment was not recognized, however, some humanitarian grounds were taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of sentence like age, mens rea, economic status, strength of the criminals. The regular prison system was not established, however, the system of imprisonment existed and facts show that special prison was created for specific criminal. Some form of punishments were inhumane and barbaric like mutilation, down grading in lower caste, feeding inedible things, individual revenge by the victim, forced to wear disgusting things, enslavement, banishment from country etc. However, some changes in penal system were made, which are equivalent to modern concept of punishment like punishment only for wrongdoer, no harsh punishment for juveniles and females. Thus, criminal law of Shah Period marched towards modernization and humanization.      

Besides, the criminal law of other earlier dynasties was more traditional than Shah Dynasty; however, the whole criminal law of Nepal before codification was based on Hindu Dharmashastra. Therefore, Hindu Dharmashastra was the sole source of Nepalese criminal law before1910 BS.  

(Reference: Nepal Law Review, Kathmandu: Nepal Law Campus, Year 37, Vol. 24, No. 1 & 2, 2012)


[1]*Lecturer, Nepal Law Campus, LL.M. in Law of Crime and Tort,  Baburam Acharya, Prachin Kalako Nepal (Nepal of Ancient Period), Kathmandu: Shrkrishna Acharya, 2060, p. 49
[2] D. R. Regmi, Ancient Nepal, New Delhi: Rupa and Co. 2007, p. 55
[3] Acharya, op. cit. p. 63
[4] Iman Singh Chemjong, Kirat Mundhum (Kirat Ko Veda), Lalitpur: Kirat Yakthung Chumlun, 2059 [5] Rewati Raman Khanal, Neapl Ko Kanooni Itihasko Ruprekaha (An outline of Legal History of Nepal), Kathmandu: Saraswati Khanal, 2059, p. 25
[6] Chemjong, op. cit. p. 104
[7] Khanal, op. cit. p. 26
[8] Ibid, p. 25
[9] Ibid, p. 23
[10] Acharya, op. cit. p.149
[11] Levy Sylvian, Le Nepal (Ancient Nepal), Journal of the Department of Archeology, p. 357
[12] Tulsi Ram Vaidya and Tri Ratna Manandhar, Crime and Punishment in Nepal: A historical Perspective, Kathmandu: Bini Vaidya and Purna Devi Manadhar, 1985, p. 19
[13] Acharya, op. cit., p.149
[14] Khanal, op. cit., p. 32
[15] Gyaindra Bahadur Shrestha, Hindu Jurisprudence and Nepalese Legal System, Kathmandu: Pairavi Prakashan, 2056, p. 195
[16] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 35
[17] Khanal, op. cit., p. 32; Shrestha, op. cit.,, p. 195
[18] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 44
[19] Ibid, p. 45
[20] Ibid, p. 23
[21] Khanal, op. cit., p. 33
[22] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., pp. 45, 46
[23] Ibid,, p. 54
[24] Shrestha, op. cit., p. 195, Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 28
[25] Khanal, op. cit., p. 31
[26] Baburam Acharya, Nepalko Sankshipta Brittanta, Kathmandu: Shrikrishna Acharya, 2063, p. 53
[27] Khanal, op. cit., p. 49
[28] Ibid, pp. 46-47
[29] Ibid, p. 63
[30] Ibid,  pp. 63-64
[31] Ibid, p. 64
[32] Ibid
[33] Ibid
[34] Ibid
[35] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 121
[36] Prakash Osti (ed.), Kanoonsambandhi Kehi Eitihasik Abhilekhaharu, Kathmandu: Kanoon, 2063, p. 96
[37] Muluki Ain, 1910, Chapter on Document Scrutiny, nos. 16 & 17
[38] Yogi Naraharinath (ed.), Divya Upadesh, 2010
[39] Khanal, op. cit., p. 76
[40] Baburam Acharya, Shri Panch Badamaharajadhiraj Prithivi Narayan Shahko Sankshipta Jivani, Kathmandu: Shri Panch Maharajadhirajka Sambad Sachivalaya, 2061, p. 449
[41] Ibid, p. 454
[42] Khanal, op. cit., p. 77
[43] Ibid, p. 79
[44] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 138
[45] Ibid, p. 122
[46]  Acharya, 2061, op. cit., p. 449
[47] Ibid, p. 450
[48] Ibid, pp. 453-54
[49] Khanal, op. cit., p. 77
[50]  Muluki Ain, op. cit., Chapter on Document Scrutiny, no. 16
[51]  Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 123
[52] Khanal, op. cit., p. 69
[53] Vaidya and Manandhar, op. cit., p. 123