You are currently viewing Justice for Chhori Maiya Maharjan – Case Summary and analysis – Exposed – July 29, 2021

Justice for Chhori Maiya Maharjan – Case Summary and analysis – Exposed – July 29, 2021

92 / 100

This blog is purely based on the video by Random Nepali on YouTube. The video is in the Nepali language. Click here to watch the video.

Basic Background of Chhori Maiya Maharjan’s Case

Chhori Maiya Maharjan, a 52 years old woman, went to Surakshya Singh’s (aka Nikki Singh) home. After some time, Chhori Maiya’s daughter received a call from her mother’s cell phone. However, no one talked with Chhori Maiya’s daughter in that call. Based on an interview with Chhori Maiya’s daughter, her mobile phone fell down and this might be the reason why she didn’t hear any sound in that call. After this, Chhori Maiya’s daughter again received a message from her mother’s phone. The text reads “Manakamana Jadai chu Bholi auchu” – means – “Going to Manakamana, will return tomorrow”. This was the last message from Chhori Maiya Maharjan and she never came back.

Surakshya Singh (aka Nikki Singh)
Surakshya Singh (aka Nikki Singh)
Surakshya Singh

Fact 1: Based on Chhori Maiya’s daughter, Chhori Maiya couldn’t use any other mobile functions besides receiving and ending the call. Further, Chhori Maiya’s mobile screen was broken. So, when her daughter received the message, there was suspect of something wrong. When Chhori Maiya Maharjan didn’t return the next day, her daughter filed a case with the police.

Investigation on Chhori Maiya Maharjan Case started

As Chhori Maiya Maharjan said that she is visiting Surakshya Singh’s home, Surakshya became the first suspect of this case. Based on the police investigation, Surakshya had taken a loan of NRs 50 lakhs from Chhori Maiya Maharjan and didn’t payback. However, Surakshya Singh has not accepted this claim. But the forensic team of Nepal police has proven that Surakshya had to pay NRs 50 lakhs to Chhori Maiya Maharjan. So, police keep Surakshya as the main suspect.

Analysis Obtained from Random Nepali’s Video

Fact 2: Based on a report from Asian Human Rights Commission, after filing a missing report, Nepal police only identified Chhori Maiya’s last location (from her cell number) in 3 months. This means, no other investigations were done within 3 months time period. Random Nepali claims this to be a questioning fact in this case. The case was from 2012 so at that time location tracking and other technologies were easily available so, why Nepal police at that time only identified her last location and not other facts?

Fact 3: It has been claimed that the statement of the suspect or (defendant) was different in the court than the statement provided to the police investigation team. Random Nepali claims this type of thing to be experienced daily in our judicial system because many defendants or suspects change their statement in the court claiming that they were pressurized by the police while making a statement.

Fact 4: Based on the secondary research done by Random Nepali, it has been claimed that the investigative authority didn’t submit several investigation facts and evidence to the court saying that the court didn’t ask for. However, the Nepali judicial system needs the investigative authority to submit every evidence and fact that comes out from the investigation. Hence, Random Nepali claims that it is unlawful action or statement given by the investigative authority.

Fact 4: Based on different news reports and interviews with Chhori Maiya Maharjan’s daughter, a non-negligible fact was out. This was about, Deepak Malhotra, one of the biggest businessmen of Samsung’s sole distributor in Nepal. The main suspect of the Chhori Maiya’s case, Surakshya Singh is the sister of Deepak Malhotra. So, things like threatening the investigation committee, offering NRs 50 Lakhs to Chhori Maiya’s daughter to withdraw the case, were seen. People close to Deepak Malhotra were suspected to do all these things.

Deepak Malhotra, one of the biggest businessmen of Samsung’s sole distributor in Nepal
Deepak Malhotra

Fact 5: The district court provided a decision after 2 years and 3 months on this case. However, the decision was made at 9:30 pm which is after office hours. However, the decision was made in the favour of Surakhsya Singh (Nikki Singh) and decided that she was not guilty in that case. Furthermore, newspaper articles claim that the judgment made by the district court was a one-line judgment claiming Surakhsya Singh is not guilty. This is the main point for questioning because judgment from the district court always comes with reasons and justifications after analyzing all the available evidence.

Hence, Random Nepali as well as Many Nepalese people want this case to be reopened and reinvestigated.

You can also read

How to do cybercrime report online in Nepal? Follow 6 Crucial steps and Be safe

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

This Post Has 3 Comments

  1. Jivan

    Justice delayed is justice denied