If a person has committed a crime, can that person be sued for their crimes at any time? Surprisingly, no. Just like the final grains of sand flowing through an hourglass, the pursuit of justice quietly ends with limited descent. This limitation enshrined by the law is the Statute of Limitation (hereinafter SOL). SOL is a concept which provides that no court shall entertain proceedings for the enforcement of certain rights if such proceedings were set on foot after the lapse of a definite period of time, reckoned as a rule from the date of the violation of right. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said aptly some 100 years ago: “Sometimes it is said that, if a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example”.¹ 

But the question remains, when did the concept of SOL in general evolve? Its concept came from Roman law that dealt with ownership. Prior to this concept, when you owned something, you had ownership over that property and it was legally protected forever. It did not mean that you could not trade, you could with a process called as mancipatio ²  which involved five witnesses, a pair of scales, a person dedicated to holding those scales and a copper ingot. But, if one did not want to go through this process, person;  A could still trade a little with person B but the ownership remained in person A but this made the ownership process very unfair and confusing. Later, the Roman Emperor Theodosius II in 424 AD stated that if it’s not in one’s possession for 30 years, it isn’t yours anymore. 

To add upon this, Hugo Grotius in his De jure belli ac pacis stated that time alone may turn the possession into a right — irrespective of one’s good or bad faith. Jan Hallebeek writes, “the rightful claimant’s inactivity results in the presumption of abandonment”. If someone who is able to pursue his rights, though fails to do so for a long time beyond memory, he is presumed to have abandoned the thing.

Usually, we have this idea that if a person has committed crime, he must be punished anyhow, at any time but that is not what the purpose of SOL says. This very concept is designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses have disappeared. As the saying goes, what has been forgotten can rarely be shown. If there was no limitation, a claim would hang above the head of the debtor as if it were a Damocles’ sword. SOL is significant to allow peace of mind, avoid disrupting settled expectations, reduce uncertainty, minimize deterioration of evidence, ensure accurate fact finding, prevent fraud, reduce litigation cost, reduce the number of litigation and preserve the integrity of the legal system.

One of the leading cases in regards to significance of SOL in today’s context would be Madan Bahadur Malla v. Nepal Government ³ relating to bigamy where the first wife files a F.I.R against her husband claiming that her husband has committed a crime of bigamy, so required actions must be taken. However, in the case, the crime of bigamy is proved, even the husband and the second wife accept it but the Supreme Court doesn’t give judgement in favour of the first wife. The Section 175 of Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 criminalizes bigamy and as per Section 176, a complaint shall be filed within 3 months from the date of knowledge of the crime. 

But this section fails to clarify whose knowledge, whether it is of the complainant or of the prosecutor and this has led to different judgments in the previous similar cases, even though the fact remains the same. Among many issues raised, the court delved on whether the first wife had filed a complaint against the defendant within the time limit and whether SOL should be considered from the date of knowledge of crime of the victim or of the prosecutor.

Acknowledging previous different judgments, the Supreme Court established that the limitation period for filing a case begins on the date when the first wife becomes aware of the crime, not the prosecutor. Specifically, in bigamy cases, if the first wife had prior knowledge of the second marriage but files a complaint later, only after dispute arises and if the SOL has already passed, such action may be barred by limitation principles. As a result, in this case, the defendant was acquitted.
 
SOL is significant but is it really fair that someone can escape accountability just because the time has passed and is it really fair that someone is deprived of justice just because of delay in filing a lawsuit? While acknowledging that, we can still discuss some conditions where SOL can be extended which include unforeseeable circumstances that obstruct enforcement of plaintiff’s rights. In such cases, some doctrines can be applicable for the extension of SOL:

Doctrine of Equitable Tolling: Even though the SOL has passed, the plaintiff’s right to claim won’t be barred if the person despite the diligent efforts did not discover the injury until after the limitations period had expired. The case of Pace v. Diguglielmo established two requirements for the application of this doctrine: i) that the person has been pursuing his rights diligently, ii) occurrence of extraordinary circumstances. However, in context of Nepal, this doctrine shall apply only in civil cases.

John Doe Indictments: John Doe is a name given for male person whose identity is unknown. In this principle, the prosecution files a charge against an unknown suspect using their DNA profile as identification. When investigators have found the DNA evidence but have not identified the suspect yet, they file charges against John Doe, an unknown suspect. This filing then pause SOL. It can be best applied in rape lawsuits as this principle prevents criminals from escaping justice merely because investigators could not identify them before SOL expired.

In conclusion, SOL is simply a concept that states in case of violation of their rights, they only have a certain period of time within which they can file a lawsuit with regards to its exceptions. Due to the principle of SOL the law also withdraws its protection from those who are negligent in protecting one’s assets after a time. The law turns its back on those who sleep on their rights. Therefore, in order to ensure justice, one must acknowledge SOL.