KATHMANDU: Standing inside the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) headquarters, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak on August 3, 2025, reiterated the government’s commitment to “leave no stone unturned” in the unresolved rape and murder case of 13-year-old Nirmala Panta.

His remarks come seven years after Nirmala’s brutal killing in Kanchanpur shocked the nation and exposed glaring failures within Nepal’s police and judicial system.

For Nirmala’s family, however, such statements have become a familiar refrain—promises unfulfilled, as they continue their relentless, yet frustrating, pursuit of justice.

This explainer will delve into how institutional failures, political interference, and years of negligence have turned a child’s murder into Nepal’s most emblematic case of justice delayed and denied.

What is the Nirmala Panta rape and murder case?

On July 26, 2018, 13-year-old Nirmala Panta from Bhimdatta Municipality, Kanchanpur, left her home in the afternoon to visit a friend’s house. She never returned. The following morning, her lifeless body was found in a sugarcane field, barely a kilometer away from her residence. The autopsy confirmed what the nation feared: Nirmala had been brutally raped and strangled to death.

What started as a local crime story quickly escalated into a national outrage. The grotesque nature of the crime, compounded by the victim’s age and innocence, pierced through Nepal’s collective conscience.

However, what truly enraged the public was not just the heinous act but the subsequent handling of the investigation by the Nepal Police, which would later be widely condemned as a textbook example of institutional failure and complicity.

The Nirmala Panta case became more than just a crime—it became a litmus test for Nepal’s law enforcement credibility and the state’s commitment to protecting its citizens, especially women and children.

Over the years, Nirmala’s name has evolved into a symbol of justice denied, a grim reminder of how power, negligence, and apathy can crush an ordinary family’s plea for truth.

How were the police negligent in the investigation?

From the very beginning, the investigation into Nirmala’s rape and murder was marred by grave police negligence. Key evidence was either mishandled or deliberately destroyed.

On the morning Nirmala’s body was discovered, instead of preserving the crime scene, police officers allowed it to be contaminated. Shockingly, Nirmala’s clothes, which could have provided crucial forensic evidence, were washed by police personnel before proper examination.

Perhaps the most glaring example of police misconduct was the arrest of Dilip Singh Bista, a mentally challenged man, who was paraded as the prime suspect. Despite lacking credible evidence, police extracted a confession from Bista under questionable circumstances.

DNA tests would later confirm that Bista was innocent, but by then, significant damage had already been done.

Adding to the list of failures was the apparent mishandling of DNA evidence. The process of collecting, preserving, and analyzing DNA samples was fraught with inconsistencies.

Whistleblowers within the police would later reveal that higher authorities exerted pressure to steer the investigation away from influential suspects. CCTV footage that could have been pivotal went missing. Crucial witnesses were either ignored or intimidated.

These failures were not simply acts of incompetence; they reflected a deep-rooted culture of impunity within Nepal’s police system. For Nirmala’s family and a grieving nation, the sense of betrayal was profound.

How did protests demanding justice for Nirmala Panta expand across the country?

The public outrage over Nirmala Panta’s case quickly transcended regional boundaries. What began as local protests in Kanchanpur soon escalated into nationwide demonstrations.

Citizens from various walks of life—students, activists, women’s rights groups, and ordinary families—took to the streets with a unified cry for justice.

In Kathmandu, protesters organized mass sit-ins in front of Singha Durbar and Baluwatar, symbolically bringing their demands directly to the gates of power.

 Slogans like “Justice for Nirmala” and “End Impunity” reverberated across public squares. Social media became a powerful amplifier, with hashtags like #JusticeForNirmala trending for weeks, drawing attention both domestically and internationally.

The state’s response to these protests was often heavy-handed. Police resorted to baton charges and water cannons to disperse peaceful demonstrators, further fueling public resentment.

The crackdown on activists like Ishan Adhikari, who had been vocal about police failures, added to the sense that the state was more concerned with suppressing dissent than delivering justice.

However, the protests also marked a turning point in Nepal’s civil rights movement. For many young Nepalis, Nirmala’s case became their first brush with activism.

It wasn’t just about Nirmala—it was a broader indictment of a justice system that was seen as corrupt, unaccountable, and indifferent to the plight of ordinary citizens.

Where did the investigation go wrong?

The investigation into Nirmala Panta’s murder represents a cascade of blunders, cover-ups, and systemic failures. It went wrong on multiple fronts—from the mishandling of evidence to the lack of political will to confront those who may have been involved or complicit.

One of the primary missteps was the failure to secure and preserve the crime scene. Evidence was not only tampered with but also deliberately destroyed. The police’s hasty arrest of Dilip Singh Bista, despite glaring inconsistencies in his alibi and the absence of forensic links, was a major blow to the case’s credibility.

Further complicating matters were allegations of political interference. There were rumors that individuals with powerful connections were being shielded from investigation. Reports suggested that even when promising leads emerged, investigators were pressured to drop the trail.

The forensic investigation was equally shambolic. DNA samples collected did not match Bista, and there were claims of a DNA swap. Crucial CCTV footage from the vicinity went missing under suspicious circumstances. Witness testimonies were either ignored or not properly documented.

In 2022, when the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) was brought into the case for a fresh probe, it rekindled some hope. However, years of lost evidence and compromised investigations had already rendered the case cold. The damage was irreversible.

What happened with the suspension and reinstatement of police officers in the Nirmala Panta case?

In the aftermath of the murder and the subsequent public outrage over the mishandling of the investigation, several police officers were suspended. The Ministry of Home Affairs suspended SP Dilliraj Bista for “mishandling the case”.

A preliminary report from a high-level investigation committee led by joint secretary Hari Prasad Mainali also led to the suspension of four additional police officers: DSPs Gyan Bahadur Sethi and Angur GC, Inspector Ekendra Khadka, and Assistant Sub-inspector Ramsingh Dhami.

DSP GC had led a team from the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) that went to assist local police, while the others were part of the initial probe team.

A probe committee under DIG Dhiru Basnet was later formed to investigate the role of all officers involved in the case’s handling. The suspended officers, including SP Bista, DSPs Sethi and GC, and others, had their statements recorded by this committee.

The suspensions, however, were seen by many as “symbolic gestures”. The public believed that lower-ranking officers were being scapegoated to protect higher-ranking officials who might have been involved.

Over the years, some of these suspended officers were “quietly reinstated,” a process that was not transparent and was justified by the lack of conclusive evidence against them.

This was widely seen as another example of the state prioritizing institutional self-preservation over justice, further eroding public trust.

What does the unresolved Nirmala Panta case reveal about the commitment of five Home Ministers and six IGPs to justice?

The unresolved status of the Nirmala Panta case, even after years of promises from multiple top-tier officials, points to a profound institutional failure and a lack of political will to secure justice.

Since the 2018 murder, five different Home Ministers—Ram Bahadur Thapa, Bal Krishna Khand, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, Rabi Lamichhane, and Ramesh Lekhak—have each pledged to solve the case.

Simultaneously, six Inspector Generals of Police—Sarbendra Khanal, Thakur Prasad Gyawali, Shailesh Thapa Chhetri, Dhiraj Pratap Singh, Basanta Kunwar, and currently Deepak Thapa—have all held the highest position in the police force during the investigation.

The fact that the truth remains elusive despite such a significant turnover in leadership suggests that the problem is not with a single individual but is a deep-seated systemic issue.

The repeated failure to bring the perpetrator to justice, even with multiple investigations and leadership changes, has led to a collective belief that the system is either unwilling or unable to protect its citizens and hold the powerful accountable.

The case has become a symbol of how institutional failures can scar the collective conscience of a nation.

Why is the case considered a symbol of justice delayed and denied?

The Nirmala Panta case has transcended its tragic origins to become a national symbol of justice delayed and denied. In the seven years since the incident, the case has epitomized everything that is wrong with Nepal’s criminal justice system—police incompetence, political interference, lack of forensic capacity, and institutional impunity.

Despite repeated assurances from successive Home Ministers and Inspector Generals of Police, no real breakthrough has been achieved. Each new government and police leadership made lofty promises, only for the investigations to hit a familiar wall of “no progress.”

For the public, Nirmala’s case has become emblematic of a state that fails to protect its citizens and then fails them again in the quest for justice. It symbolizes the despair of families who are forced to wage prolonged battles against a system designed to exhaust them into submission.

Justice delayed, in this case, is not a passive outcome—it is perceived as an orchestrated denial, reflecting the deeply entrenched nexus of power and impunity in Nepal.

What promises have been made for a fresh start in the investigation?

Since 2018, a string of Home Ministers—Ram Bahadur Thapa, Bal Krishna Khand, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, Rabi Lamichhane, and now Ramesh Lekhak—have made public commitments to bring justice to Nirmala Panta’s family. Each promised a “fresh start” to the investigation, yet concrete outcomes remained elusive.

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) has been re-assigned the case multiple times, with officials pledging new forensic analyses, advanced DNA testing, and a commitment to following leads previously ignored. However, the lack of political will to confront high-level interference has been a recurring obstacle.

On August 3, 2025, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak once again vowed to leave “no stone unturned” in Nirmala’s case.

His statement, made inside the CIB headquarters, emphasized the need to uphold public trust in law enforcement. Yet, for a family who has heard similar declarations for seven years, words ring hollow unless backed by tangible action.

There is also growing discourse among civil society for the formation of an independent commission with investigative powers beyond the reach of the police hierarchy—a demand the government has so far sidestepped.

Where does the Nirmala Panta case stand now?

As of August 2025, Nirmala Panta’s case remains unsolved. The Central Investigation Bureau continues to maintain that investigations are ongoing, but significant breakthroughs have yet to be achieved.

 Seven years of evidence degradation, institutional cover-ups, and missed investigative opportunities have rendered the case cold.

For Nirmala’s family, life has been a relentless pursuit of justice against an indifferent system. They continue to live under the shadow of public sympathy but with dwindling hope for a conclusive resolution.

Public interest, however, has not waned. Each anniversary of Nirmala’s murder reignites calls for justice, with activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens demanding accountability. Yet, the case also exemplifies the limitations of public outrage in the face of institutional resistance.

Politically, the case remains a sensitive issue. Successive governments have preferred symbolic gestures over substantive actions. International human rights organizations have also criticized Nepal for its failure to deliver justice in such a high-profile case.

What would be the way forward in the pursuit of justice?

The path forward in the Nirmala Panta case requires a paradigm shift in how Nepal’s justice system addresses crimes of this magnitude.

The first and foremost step is the formation of an independent commission, comprising forensic experts, legal professionals, and human rights defenders, with full authority to investigate without police interference.

Strengthening Nepal’s forensic investigation capabilities is equally crucial. The Nirmala case highlighted glaring gaps in evidence handling, DNA preservation, and crime scene management. Investing in forensic infrastructure and training is imperative to prevent similar failures in the future.

Accountability must extend beyond token suspensions. There is a pressing need for criminal proceedings against those who obstructed justice, tampered with evidence, and engaged in deliberate cover-ups. This would serve not only as reparation for Nirmala’s family but also as a deterrent against future institutional misconduct.

Furthermore, Nepal’s law enforcement culture demands a systemic overhaul. Transparency, civilian oversight, and a shift from a protectionist mindset to a service-oriented ethos are necessary to restore public trust.

Finally, justice for Nirmala is not just about identifying her killer—it is about ensuring that the system that failed her does not fail another child.