Modernizing criminal justice with technological use

By: Jivesh Jha & Rajendra Paudel

Published: April 17, 2026, The Annapurna Express  

In today’s world, technology has become an essential part of criminal investigations. What once depended largely on eyewitnesses, confessions, and manual police work has now evolved into a system supported by data, machines, and scientific tools. Modern digital technologies are helping law enforcement agencies solve complex cases more quickly, more efficiently, and often more fairly.

Artificial intelligence (AI), data analysis, digital forensics, and biometric identification have significantly transformed traditional methods of investigation. These tools allow investigators to process large volumes of information in a short time, identify patterns, and draw connections that would otherwise remain hidden. As a result, investigations are not only faster but also more accurate and reliable.

Digital evidence has now become a routine part of criminal cases. Electronic records, mobile phone data, emails, and even blockchain-based systems for tracking evidence are increasingly used in courts. Unlike traditional forms of evidence, digital records often leave a trace that is difficult to erase, making them particularly valuable in proving or disproving claims.

Technologies such as CCTV cameras, drones, and body-worn cameras have also changed the way crimes are detected and investigated. Surveillance systems help monitor public spaces and record events as they unfold.

Facial recognition and location-tracking technologies have further strengthened investigations. In many cases, they have helped law enforcement agencies solve crimes that would have otherwise remained unsolved.

DNA analysis

Another major development has been in the field of genetic science. DNA analysis has advanced far beyond its early forms. DNA evidence can link a suspect to a crime scene or help identify unknown individuals, making it one of the most powerful tools in modern investigations.

However, it is important to remember that even scientific evidence has its limits. Courts have emphasized that DNA reports, while important, are not absolute proof.

In Ram Shahi and Others v Prem Kumari Shahi and Others (NKP 2079, Decision No. 10854), the Supreme Court (SC) held that DNA evidence must be examined in the context of social realities and surrounding circumstances. This highlights a jurisprudential principle: technology should assist justice, not replace judicial reasoning.

Cross-border crimes

Technology is also playing a crucial role in addressing crimes in border areas. Nepal faces challenges such as cross-border trafficking, illegal trade, narcotics smuggling, and the circulation of counterfeit currency.

Crimes like human trafficking, especially involving women and girls, remain a serious concern.

In Chandra Kant Gyanwali v Government of Nepal (NKP 2080, Decision No. 11037), the SC stressed the need for stronger border management, including the use of CCTV and other surveillance technologies at checkpoints and transit points. Effective use of technology can significantly improve monitoring and control in these sensitive areas.

From a constitutional perspective, Nepal has recognized the importance of technology in governance and development. The Constitution encourages the expansion of information technology to meet national needs.

At the same time, it protects fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, communication, and consumer rights in digital spaces. These provisions show that while technology is encouraged, it must operate within the framework of rights and freedoms.

AG’s recommendation

In terms of legal provisions, the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 plays a key role in dealing with cyber offences. It provides that such offences are prosecuted in the name of the Government of Nepal and allows investigators to seek assistance from technical experts.

The growing complexity of cybercrime, however, has exposed the limitations of existing laws. As cyber offences become more sophisticated, there is an increasing demand for updated and comprehensive cyber legislation, recommending the study of Impact Assessment of Cyber Crime–Related Laws in Nepal (Investigative Study Report, 2081), conducted by Office of Attorney General (AG).

Institutionally, Nepal has taken steps to strengthen cybercrime investigations. The report of the Attorney General further reveals that the Central Cyber Bureau at Police Headquarters handles cyber-related offences across the country, supported by cyber cells in all seven provinces.

The Central Investigation Bureau and the Metropolitan Police Crime Division play important roles in different regions. However, studies have suggested that more specialized training is needed for investigators dealing with high-tech crimes, organized crime, and terrorism, recommends the 2081 AG report.

 

Criminal adjudication

The Criminal Procedure Code also reflects the growing role of technology in the justice system. It allows the filing of FIR through electronic means and provides for digital archiving of such reports.

Statements of witnesses and accused persons can be recorded through video conferencing, especially in cases involving illness, old age, or security risks. Courts can also record evidence and conduct proceedings digitally, making the justice system more accessible and efficient.

The Evidence Act, 2031 has provisions that allow the use of digital evidence. Facts expressed through emails, messages, or other digital forms can be considered in court. The Act also recognizes expert opinions in areas such as science and technology, provided that the expert appears before the court as a witness. Documentary evidence is not limited to paper documents, which means that digital records are admissible.

The law requires that proper procedures be followed before accessing personal data. For example, investigators must obtain permission from the court and submit relevant documents, such as FIRs, when seeking access to call detail records (CDRs) or other digital information.

 

In Advocate Baburam Aryal v Government of Nepal (NKP 2074, Decision No. 9740), the SC emphasized that while CDRs can be useful in investigations, they must be obtained strictly in accordance with the law.

This balance between technology and rights is crucial. Surveillance systems, if not properly regulated, can lead to violations of privacy and civil liberties. Strong legal safeguards and judicial oversight are essential.

Way forward

Technology has undoubtedly transformed criminal investigations in Nepal. It has made the process faster, more efficient, and more scientific. The need of the hour is not just more technology, but better regulation, updated laws, and trained personnel who can use these tools responsibly.

The Fifth Strategic Plan of the SC also endeavors to promote the use of technology and AI across the entire judicial system. The need of the hour is to ensure effective compliance with these strategic plans, and the government must provide adequate budgetary support and necessary manpower. A high-tech, technology-friendly justice system cannot be realized unless the government actively supports and motivates court officials and ensures the proper implementation of these strategic plans.

Technology should serve justice, not dominate it. The ultimate goal must remain the same: to ensure fairness, protect rights, and uphold the rule of law in an increasingly digital world.