The alleged gang rape and murder of Nisha Bik has sparked deep outrage and concern from social media to the streets. After this painful incident, women's rights activists, social activists, and the victim's family have strongly raised the demand for strict and effective punishment for the perpetrators of heinous crimes like rape. Some have even demanded the death penalty. Such demands have been raised when other heinous crimes are committed.

Justice for victims is not just a legal process, but also an emotional release. Rape victims are forced to deal with fear, insecurity, social exclusion, and mental trauma throughout their lives. In such a situation, the question arises, is our justice system healing their wounds or deepening them? Is it possible to rehabilitate victims only with financial compensation or life imprisonment? Is it fair to give someone who destroyed someone's life the right to live freely? The conflict between the demand for the death penalty and human rights becomes clear around these questions.

Human rights perspective and legal provisions 
Human rights views on the death penalty vary. According to human rights organization Amnesty International, the death penalty is a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both of these rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. 

The death penalty is legally prohibited in the context of Nepal. Article 16 of the Fundamental Rights Act, 2072, provides that every person has the right to life with dignity, and sub-section (2) of the Constitution of Nepal prohibits the legislative body from making laws that impose the death penalty on anyone.

In addition, Section 13 of the Criminal Offences (Sentencing and Enforcement) Act, 2074 envisages that the court, while determining the sentence, shall consider any or all of the seven objectives in determining the sentence.

Nepal has so far become a state party by ratifying, accepting and supporting various treaties, optional protocols to treaties and agreements. Among them, Nepal is a state party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1989, aimed at the complete abolition of the death penalty. Nepal accepted this protocol on March 4, 1998, and it came into force in Nepal on June 4, 1998. Since Nepal has accepted this protocol without any reservation, Nepal has fully committed to the far-reaching protocol that the death penalty will not be imposed in future wars and any inhuman crimes committed during that time. Thus, Section 9 of the Nepal Treaty Act, 2047 has provided that to the extent that the provisions of the treaty that Nepal has accepted and supported are in conflict with Nepalese law, the provisions of the treaty shall be applicable as Nepalese law. Due to these legal provisions, it is not possible to make legal arrangements in Nepal for the demands related to the death penalty raised on social media and by individuals from time to time.

Aversion to the death penalty 
While the death penalty is being used in Nepal from time to time, aversion to this punishment is also growing in the world. According to the human rights organization Amnesty International, by the end of 2024, a total of 113 countries have completely abolished the death penalty. Zimbabwe is the youngest country to abolish the death penalty by passing the Death Penalty Abolition Act in 2024. But it is still used in some countries such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United States, and India. The issue of the death penalty being implemented in some countries and not in others has been controversial all over the world. In neighboring India, although the death penalty is legally possible, the court has established this principle in cases such as Vachan Singh v. State of Punjab, stating that it should be used only under the principle of ‘the rarest of the rare’.

The implementation of the death penalty does not mean that heinous crimes like rape and murder will be completely eliminated from society. For example, in the Nirbhaya case, a 31-year-old female trainee doctor on duty was raped and murdered inside a hospital in January 2021, even after four people were sentenced to death in the case on March 20, 2020. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, there were 28,046 rape cases registered in India in 2020 and 31,677 in 2021. This means that on average, 86 to 90 rape cases are reported every day. The main question in this context is, ‘Should we seek justice by giving the culprit the death penalty or find out the root cause of the crime and work on it so that such an incident does not happen again in the future?’ Public outrage over heinous crimes like rape and murder is natural. But strict punishment alone is not enough for a long-term solution. Effective investigation, speedy justice process, victim-friendly legal system, social awareness and crime prevention measures are necessary. Whatever the punishment, it is not easy to completely end the suffering of the victims. But the justice system should at least be able to give them respect, security and trust. The debate on the death penalty will continue, but the search for justice should not be limited to punishment alone, but should be seen in conjunction with the transformation of this society. 

Conclusion 
Although from time to time, demands are raised in our country through social media or the public level to give the death penalty to the guilty in cases of heinous crimes such as rape and brutal torture, due to Nepal's current constitutional system, commitment to international human rights, and the principle of restorative justice, it does not seem possible to formulate and implement a law on the death penalty in Nepal from the perspective of accepted principles of human rights, constitutional as well as legal basis, and morality. Therefore, ensuring justice through alternative punishments such as the harshest life imprisonment for the criminal is the current legal path.