News Summary
- After the 2001 palace massacre, forensic expert Dr. Harihar Vasti and his team were not allowed to conduct postmortems due to the directive of then Queen Mother.
- Dr. Vasti refused to provide the investigation committee with a medico-legal report citing insufficient health details that could lead to inaccurate analysis.
- If postmortem and laboratory tests had been conducted, the exact time of Crown Prince Dipendra’s death, whether it was suicide or murder, and the quantity of intoxicants consumed could have been determined more easily.
The palace massacre that took place on June 2, 2001 (Jestha 19, 2058 BS) remains one of the most tragic and enigmatic events in Nepal’s history. Scientific investigation through forensic examination could have played a crucial role in uncovering the truth behind the incident. However, at that time, forensic expert Dr. Harihar Vasti and his team were taken to the army hospital but were ultimately denied permission to perform autopsies.
A two-member investigation committee led by Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadhyay and including Speaker Taranath Ranabhat prepared a report after seven days, which many doubted. The report stated that Crown Prince Dipendra had killed everyone and then committed suicide himself.
Looking back nearly 25 years later, one wonders what would have been revealed if a postmortem had been allowed at that time. Were Crown Prince Dipendra’s deaths truly by suicide? What intoxicants did he consume? When exactly did King Birendra die? Scientific facts regarding these questions could have emerged. What different aspects of the incident would have been disclosed with a postmortem? The following edited excerpts present a conversation with forensic expert Dr. Harihar Vasti conducted by Sant Gaha Magar and Pushpa Chaulagain:
We are trying to recall an event nearly 25 years old. Where were you on the night of the palace massacre on June 2, 2001? How did you come to know about the incident?
That night of the palace massacre: Why was forensic expert Dr. Vasti abruptly taken and kept hidden at home?
The circumstances of learning about the event were somewhat unusual for me. On that evening, we three forensic medicine specialists, along with the DSP and inspector from the Kathmandu Police Office, the government prosecutor of Kathmandu, and a Chief District Officer, convened a small meeting at a hotel in Thamel.
The meeting began somewhat late, closer to 7 PM. After dining, as the program was nearing its end, there was an odd atmosphere which only became clear later.
The police colleagues suddenly vanished. They left hastily during the meal. The CDO also disappeared. Only the government prosecutor and we were left there.
When I asked, “What happened?” a junior police officer came and said, “The seniors have been sent home.” We had no idea as to why. Eventually, we were taken in a vehicle back home.
At that time, the three of us forensic experts were Dr. Pramod Shrestha, Dr. Tulsi Kandel, and myself. Our objective had been to discuss how the police investigation could be made more effective. But that night, we were sent home with no further information.
Around 3 AM, a relative called from Canada informing me that the BBC had broadcast news with scenes from the Royal Palace and the army hospital area. Only then did I realize the gravity of the incident.
You were repeatedly taken to Birendra Military Hospital but not allowed to perform a postmortem, correct?
You need to understand an earlier part of the story. This is a complex issue related to my professional residency at the time.
On the morning of the first day of the massacre, police informed us that around 9-10 AM we would be taken to the army hospital to conduct postmortems. We were prepared there being told, “There will be no need to move the bodies elsewhere; everything should be done right here.”
We made all arrangements and expected to proceed with the work. However, around 3 PM when preparations for placing the bodies were underway, senior army commanders informed us that the Queen Mother did not approve—therefore, postmortems were not to be conducted.
After a whole day of waiting, we were sent back home. Although a formal ritual (Bhawajai) was to take place four days later, we were never able to carry out our work.
At dawn on June 5 (Jestha 22), news arrived that Dipendra, declared King, had passed away. We were again taken to the army hospital around 8 AM but could not reach due to a massive crowd gathering. The crowd pressured and encouraged us both.
An agitated crowd demanded proper testing of the bodies, chanting “The doctors have come for the postmortem.”
We waited in the same room until around 4 PM when again army officials relayed the message, “The Queen Mother has not approved—please return.”
We remained there all day but were unable to conduct any tests.
Unanswered questions of the palace massacre: scientific answers hindered by the lack of forensic examination:
Why did the two-member investigation committee headed by then Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadhyay seek your opinion?
Back then, the commission only had two members. I received an official letter and was the only one summoned. I was at Teaching Hospital at the time. The request to appear was informal.
I went to the commission, where Dr. Khagendra Shrestha received me and took me inside the Singha Durbar office. He was the royal physician and a cardiologist. He told me, ‘We need a medico-legal opinion supported by medical records.’
I responded, ‘I cannot do this. The doctors treating the patients did not keep detailed records, so it is not possible to prepare such a report.’
He tried to convince me, but I made it clear that such a task was beyond my capacity.
I formally answered their questions and told them we were not allowed to perform any tests and were merely told to wait.
I recalled the infamous case of US President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, where inadequate treatment and missing records complicated the judicial process, citing known global cases as examples.
They asked, ‘Should a postmortem be done or not?’ I explained using world-famous cases as references.
Were there gunshot wounds? How many? What weapon? These details must be accounted for—ballistic experts can identify these. But no postmortem was allowed, and the work was stopped.
What would have been revealed if a postmortem had been conducted?
The presence of intoxicants, the exact time of death, whether death was by suicide or murder, the number of bullets, and the distance from which shots were fired—these are all proven by autopsy.
The precise dates of death of Dipendra and other family members could have been determined.
Scientific examination would have clarified many aspects.
It would have been clear how alcohol or other intoxicants affected the individuals.
What problems arose due to the lack of a postmortem?
The lack of sufficient data might have led to incorrect conclusions. There was no ability to compare details from the bodies and the crime scene.
The investigation did not proceed properly, leaving the truth shrouded in darkness.
If a postmortem could be conducted now, some studies might be possible using advanced technology. However, after such a long time, the absence of the crime scene and physical evidence makes this very challenging.
Photo/Video: Shankar Giri
