The Bhutanese Leading the way.
Amidst public criticism over the nine-year prison sentences handed to six men convicted of raping a minor, Prime Minister Dasho Tshering Tobgay said that possible amendments to the Penal Code of Bhutan could be discussed to provide for harsher punishment for offences against children. The Prime Minister said the government could not directly intervene in the Judiciary’s sentencing decisions, as cases must be adjudicated in accordance with the law. However, he said public dissatisfaction over the sentences could be discussed and amendments to the Penal Code considered as a possible way forward.
The response comes amid criticism on social media platforms following the Tsirang District Court’s 15th September judgment convicting six men of the offence of rape of a child above twelve years of age. Each was sentenced to nine years in prison. The sentences have raised questions among members of the public about whether the punishment adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence, the long-term psychological impact on children subjected to sexual abuse, and the need for stronger deterrence and child protection.
Home Minister Lyonpo Lungten Dorji said the law on rape had been strengthened in the past, and he clarified that the six men had not committed the offence together. Lyonpo Lungten Dorji said Bhutan has legal provisions under the Penal Code of Bhutan, the Royal Bhutan Police Act, and the Child Care and Protection Act and Rules to address offences against children.
Case and Court Findings
The six men- Dambar Kumar Chhetri (29), Pema Tshewang Tamang (33), Mandoj Rai (36), Sunil Darjee (28), Namgay Lhendup (29), and Moni Kumar Tamang (28)- were convicted of rape of a child above twelve years of age, with the offences constituting second-degree felonies. The victim, whose identity is being withheld to protect her privacy, was around 15 to 16 years old during the incidents. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) prosecuted the six men for having sexual intercourse with the same minor girl at different times in Tsirang between 2024 and 2025.
According to court findings, the accused came into contact with the victim through Facebook, Messenger, TikTok, telephone calls, and a karaoke venue in Damphu town, Tsirang. The incidents took place at different times, and the evidence included statements from the victim, statements made by some of the accused to the police, telephone records, bank transactions, and medical reports.
The incident came to light when the victim’s brother reported the matter to Tsirang Police on 13th July 2025. In her first statement to the police on 13th July 2025, the victim said that in December 2024, she met Dambar Kumar Chhetri on Facebook and stayed in contact with him online for about a week. She said that they later met in person near the road at Tsholingkhar, where he asked her for sex. She told him that she was underage, but he ignored her, removed her pants, and had sexual intercourse with her. He then told her not to tell anyone. Afterwards, he blocked her mobile number and her Messenger account. When she called him from another number, he said he did not care what she did. Dambar denied having sexual intercourse with the victim, claiming that he had only given her a lift.
The court rejected his denial after considering inconsistencies in his accounts and other evidence, noting that defence witnesses had testified to the victim saying that Dambar had forcibly had intercourse with her. Telephone records also showed contact between Dambar and the victim on 15th May, 18th June, and 7th July 2025, despite his claim that there had been no contact.
Also, the victim said she met another man called “Chengba” Pema Tshewang Tamang on TikTok and Messenger. Later, while the two of them were talking in a house, she told him not to come near her. He ignored her, touched her body, and had sexual intercourse with her. He then told her not to be angry and gave her Nu 4,000 and a contraceptive pill. In his statement to the police on 15th July 2025, he also said he had sexual intercourse with the victim twice. He said he gave her Nu 2,000 on two occasions and later Nu 1,000 once. The court rejected his argument that the encounter should be treated as patronising a prostitute rather than rape, holding that a child below 18 cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse, including in exchange for money.
In her supplementary statement to the police on 4th August 2025, the victim said that the accused Moni Kumar Tamang had sexual intercourse with her once using a condom and then drove her home in his vehicle. Moni Kumar Tamang’s own statement to the police on 18th July 2025 says the same. He said that he went to pick up the victim at Tshokana at about 9:00 pm and took her to Kuti Dangra, where he had sexual intercourse with her once using a condom before dropping her off where she lives. The court rejected the argument that Moni believed the victim was 19, noting that his own statement did not establish this, and rejected the argument that the case should not be treated as rape.
The victim, in her statement on the same day, said that she and the accused Sunil Darjee were in a romantic relationship and had consensual sexual intercourse twice. The case material recorded that their families had known each other in Tsholingkhar since childhood, and bank records showed transfers totalling approximately Nu 6,600. In his statement to the police on 25th July 2025, Sunil Darjee likewise said he began contact with the victim on 22nd October 2024 and had sexual intercourse with her twice using a condom. He argued that he had no criminal intent because he believed she was older. The court rejected the mistake-of-age argument, holding that the claim that the victim had represented herself as 19 did not provide a defence to the charge.
Additionally, the victim in her statement said that Mandoj Rai had sexual intercourse with her twice. He gave her mobile recharges, pocket money, and clothes. Bank records showed eight transfers to the victim totaling approximately Nu 3,100 between February and July 2025. Mandoj admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim, but claimed that the encounters were consensual. The court rejected his argument that he had mistaken the victim’s age, holding that the accused had a responsibility to verify the age of the person with whom they engaged in sexual intercourse and could not rely on an unsubstantiated belief that a child was an adult.
Further, the victim in her statement said she encountered Namgay Lhendup through a karaoke venue in Damphu, where he worked at a venue owned by his wife. She said that after karaoke, Namgay took her to a house below the road at Dalgolai, where he had sexual intercourse with her once, using a condom. However, Namgay denied having sexual intercourse with the victim. The court considered a statement from Mandoj Rai placing Namgay and the victim together in a room on Empire Road. It also considered a bank record showing a Nu 199 data top-up to the victim’s phone on 26th June 2025. The court noted evidence that Namgay and his wife knew the victim was underage. The karaoke venue had also been fined Nu 22,500 by the Revenue and Customs Office for admitting her. The court rejected Namgay’s denial after assessing the evidence.
After the investigation, the case was forwarded to the OAG, who charged all six men and sought convictions for second-degree felonies as per the law. The court found that the victim’s accounts were consistent and credible, and that they were supported by other evidence. It considered her statements to police, the National Referral Hospital, and the National Commission for Women and Children, alongside statements made by some of the accused.
Three of the accused, Pema Tshewang Tamang, Sunil Darjee, and Moni Kumar Tamang admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim in their statements to police. A medical report from Damphu Hospital dated 13th July 2025 recorded no fresh injuries and noted that the victim’s hymen was not intact. A subsequent report from the National Referral Hospital dated 1st August 2025 noted moderate psychological illness associated with distressing circumstances. The report recorded that the victim experienced fear following telephone threats and had occasional suicidal thoughts. The report established that the victim suffered a moderate psychological illness as a result of the sexual offences committed against her, and the hospital recommended treatment and follow-up care.
Why the Court Imposed Nine Years
In sentencing the six men, the court considered the circumstances of the offences, the victim’s age, and the accused persons’ criminal records. The court also relied on legal principles such as the High Court judgment (OAG v. Sudan Sapkota), which holds three key points: a child under 18 cannot consent to intercourse, the accused bears the burden of verifying the child’s age, and liability arises whether or not there was intent or consent.
The court added that the Penal Code has been in force since 2004, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. An accused who fails to check identification documents acts with “deliberate ignorance.” The court also rejected the argument that the offence was patronising a prostitute, as a child cannot consent to sex in exchange for money either. Intercourse with a child is therefore rape, whether it is paid for or not.
Additionally, the court noted that most of the accused did not have prior convictions for similar offences. Mandoj Rai had previous convictions for battery and possession of stolen property, but not for sexual offences. The court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in OAG v. Kinley Tshering, delivered on 15th September 2023, which imposed a nine-year sentence for sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old stepdaughter.
