जबरजस्ती करणी आरोपमा झापाका व्यवसायी पक्राउ. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information / Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one institutional perspective (police) without additional context or perspectives can create subtle imbalance, even if the tone is neutral.

The article relies almost entirely on the District Police Office’s account: “जिल्ला प्रहरी कार्यालय झापाका अनुसार…”, “प्रहरीले जनाएको छ।” There is no comment from the accused or his legal representative, no indication of attempts to obtain such comment, and no broader context (e.g., presumption of innocence, that the case is under investigation).

3 suggestions

Add a clear presumption-of-innocence reminder, e.g., “उनीमाथि लगाइएको आरोप अदालतले दोषी ठहर नगरेसम्म प्रमाणित भइसकेको छैन।”

Mention whether attempts were made to contact the accused or his lawyer for comment, e.g., “मित्तल वा उनका कानुनी प्रतिनिधिको धारणा लिन प्रयास गर्दा सम्पर्क हुन सकेन।”

Clarify that the information is based on police reports and that investigation is ongoing, e.g., “यो विवरण जिल्ला प्रहरी कार्यालय झापाले दिएको प्रारम्भिक जानकारीमा आधारित छ र थप अनुसन्धान जारी छ।”

Appeal to authority (mild, structural)

Relying solely on police statements as the factual basis can implicitly encourage readers to accept the police version as complete and final.

Phrases like “जिल्ला प्रहरी कार्यालय झापाका अनुसार…” and “प्रहरीले जनाएको छ।” are the only sources cited. No other corroborating sources (e.g., court documents, independent witnesses, legal experts) are referenced.

3 suggestions

Explicitly frame police statements as one source among others, e.g., “प्रहरीको प्रारम्भिक दाबी अनुसार…” instead of implying they are definitive facts.

Where possible, reference additional neutral sources such as court filings or official charge documents, not only police statements.

Add a line noting that details may change as the investigation proceeds, e.g., “अनुसन्धानको क्रममा थप तथ्य बाहिर आउन सक्ने भएकाले विवरण परिवर्तन हुन सक्छ।”