On January 7, 2011, a Bollywood film based on a true story—No One Killed Jessica—was released. The film was inspired by a chilling murder case in which India’s local court acquitted the accused. Reporting on the verdict, The Times of India ran a headline that would become iconic: No One Killed Jessica. On April 29, 1999, Jessica Lal, a young woman working as a bartender, was shot dead at point-blank range. Eyewitnesses saw the shooter. Police identified the killer as Manu Sharma, the son of a former union minister and filed a case. Yet, the court failed to deliver justice. Jessica, trying to earn extra income, was killed, while the perpetrator walked free—protected by political power. The verdict delivered on February 22, 2006, appeared to grant a license to the powerful to kill with impunity. It was only after sustained media outrage and follow-up reports that the verdict was overturned. Exactly 300 days later, in December 2006, the Delhi High Court found Manu Sharma guilty of murder.
Today, a similar narrative is playing out in Nepal: “There was no bomb blast in Rautahat; Trilok and Osi were not killed.” A recent verdict of Janakpur High Court acquitting ruling Nepali Congress (NC) leader and former minister Mohammad Aftab Alam and others echoes this disturbing theme. The High Court concluded that no explosion occurred at the brick kiln in Rautahat and dismissed the deaths of Trilok Pratap Singh and Osi Akhtar by labelling them as unverified and their identities as “unknown.” But the facts on the ground were entirely different from the court’s conclusion. On the evening of April 9, 2008, a powerful explosion took place at the Raja Brick Kiln. Alam and his team had allegedly been preparing explosives allegedly to influence and rig the Constituent Assembly elections. In the incident, 24-year-old Trilok Pratap Singh, also known as Pintu, and 22-year-old Osi Akhtar were injured. Eyewitnesses confirmed they saw both men wounded. However, their families and witnesses later claimed that the injured men were thrown into the kiln and burned alive in an attempt to destroy evidence. A division bench of Judges Khusi Prasad Tharu and Arjun Maharjan at the Birgunj Bench of Janakpur High Court on May 27 ruled that witness testimony could not be considered valid evidence. On the grounds that the incident itself did not occur, Alam was released from jail. This came amid NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba publicly declaring his intention to secure Alam’s release. At the inauguration of a Vishnu Purana Mahayagya in Singarwan of Garuda Municipality-6 on March 3, 2021, Deuba had claimed that Alam had been falsely accused and pledged, “Aftab is in jail, and I will do everything I can to secure his release.”
Judges Tharu and Maharjan, who issued the acquittal, have now been summoned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a complaint has been filed at the Judicial Council against Law Minister Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya, alleging he pressured judges to acquit Alam. Reports have also surfaced that Minister Chaurasiya had attempted to influence multiple cases by calling judges directly. In recent days, as judges began voicing objections and external criticism intensified, the strategy may have shifted—but reports suggest the pressure remains. Cases of this nature are usually prosecuted by the state. But when the accused are politically connected, the cases are often deliberately weakened. Those without influence must endure the harshest punishments, while the powerful walk free. When even a heinous crime—like burning victims alive—is politically defended and the eventual outcome favours the accused, it naturally raises alarm and concern. Even when cases are filed against the powerful, efforts are often made to dilute charges, reduce sentences or ensure acquittal. Such trends erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Supreme Court (SC) has launched an investigation into this case has sparked a renewed sense of hope. In some instances, cases are deliberately delayed to allow public memory to fade, further undermining justice. The Constitution places the judiciary in a distinct and sacred role. Democracy cannot exist without an independent judiciary. Yet, there have been instances where the courts have failed to uphold their impartiality. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to translate the letter and spirit of the Constitution into real-life justice. If the powerful attempt to hold justice hostage, it is the judiciary that must correct the imbalance. There is reason to believe that, by understanding the ground realities, the SC will deliver justice in the Rautahat murder case. Raising questions and engaging in public debate over perceived flaws in a specific ruling should not be misunderstood. Rather, it should be seen as a necessary step toward correction. The verdict delivered at the High Court level must be thoroughly reviewed and justice for the victims must be ensured. Rautahat murder victims deserve justice—not another ‘No one killed Jessica’ moment.