The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The High Court on 28th August 2026 has overturned the Trashigang Dzongkhag Court’s acquittal of Tshering Norbu, a doctor accused of raping a 14-year-old patient, finding him guilty of rape of a child above the age of 12 years.
He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
The court also ordered him to pay Nu 250,000 in compensation to the victim within one month from the date of the judgement.
The High Court fully reversed the lower court’s decision issued on 26th February 2026, concluding that the prosecution had established the doctor’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court found that the victim was 14 years, nine months and seven days old at the time of the offence, making her legally incapable of giving consent as per Section 84.1 of the Penal Code of Bhutan, 2004.
It held that civil registration and census records conclusively established her age.
According to the judgment, the doctor deliberately separated the child from her mother by telling them that the victim’s health book had been left in his office while they were at the ophthalmology section collecting eyeglasses.
The court found that he took the child into his chamber, locked the door and sexually exploited her, concluding that he acted purposely and knowingly with the intention of committing the offence.
A significant factor in the High Court’s decision was evidence that the defendant had previously engaged in inappropriate conduct towards two female patients.
Although those incidents had been resolved internally by the hospital administration, the court held that the prior conduct was relevant in establishing a pattern of inappropriate behaviour toward female patients.
After the two initial complaints, it was agreed between the administration and the doctor that he would keep a female chaperone with him when examining female patients which was not practiced in the recent incident.
The court further held that the doctor exploited the victim’s vulnerability, noting that she was a child with an intellectual disability, mental health concerns, dependency on the doctor for treatment and limited ability to communicate. It concluded that he deliberately took advantage of these vulnerabilities when committing the offence.
The High Court also placed considerable weight on the victim’s testimony, observing that her account had remained consistent from the initial police investigation through the trial and appeal proceedings without material contradictions. It found that the victim had no reason to falsely accuse the doctor.
While acknowledging that the medical examination report did not conclusively establish rape on its own, the court ruled that the medical findings had to be considered together with the surrounding facts and circumstances, which it found sufficient to establish the offence.
The court also rejected each of the defence’s principal arguments.
It dismissed the argument that the doctor’s chamber was not a secretive location, holding that the victim had been taken into the room alone, the door had been latched and there was no parental supervision or female chaperone despite earlier agreements requiring one.
The judgement said these circumstances demonstrated the doctor’s intent to commit rape.
The High Court also rejected the defence’s reliance on DNA evidence from a condom recovered near the scene. The defence said that because the condom had been found outside the doctor’s chamber rather than inside it, it could not be linked to the defendant, and was therefore irrelevant to the case.
The defence had argued that the Amitriptyline tablet administered to the victim was not for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but for an epilepsy-related condition.
However, the High Court relied on a psychiatric report confirming that the victim had been diagnosed with PTSD and prescribed medication for that condition, rejecting the defence’s submission which was made on 8th April 2026.
In addressing the defence claim that the victim had falsely implicated the doctor, the court found that beyond the doctor-patient relationship formed for medical treatment, the victim had no affiliation or conflict with him nor was there any evidence of any prior dispute or hostility between the families.
Further, regarding the argument on the discrepancy in timing within the mother’s statement. The court found that since the victim’s mother is not a party to the case, she cannot be expected to recall the exact time with precision. Moreover, apart from this minor discrepancy, the sequence of events has been described clearly and consistently.
The court found defense counsel’s argument that the circumstantial evidence must fulfil the Four Litmus Test of circumstantial evidence was addressed.
Fully established facts
The victim had stated everything from when she and her family arrived at Trashigang Hospital for treatment and encountered Dr Tshering Norbu, to what he did to her, consistently and without any alteration in the testimony offered across different time periods.
This includes the fact that the doctor met and examined the victim in the absence of a female chaperone, despite being required to have one present, and the defendant and victim entering the chamber alone and latching the chamber door.
Moreover, it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he engaged in inappropriate conduct with the victim.
Facts consistent with guilt
The victim stated that when she came for treatment, the doctor took her to a chamber where they were alone, closed the door, and inappropriately touched her. Accordingly, this account of the victim’s statement was consistent with the criminal act of rape of the victim by the defendant.
Conclusive nature
The circumstances of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the statements given by every individual to the concerned authorities pointed to the conclusion that the defendant engaged in unlawful conduct with the victim.
Exclusion of innocence
Upon examining the matters stated above together with the surrounding circumstances, it was established that the defendant raped the victim, and, accordingly, there was no reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
The High Court concluded that convicting the doctor would help preserve public confidence in the medical profession, safeguard patient safety, encourage ethical medical practice and deter similar misconduct by healthcare professionals.
In addition to the prison sentence, the court found that the offence caused severe and lasting psychological trauma to the victim and her family.
It noted that the victim had developed PTSD that is expected to affect her throughout her life, and therefore ordered the doctor to pay Nu 250,000 in compensation.
The High Court also directed The PEMA to continue providing the victim with mental health support and monitoring.
Dzongkhag court findings
In acquitting the doctor in February this year, the Dzongkhag Court had ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It relied on medical findings that did not indicate recent vaginal penetration or physical injuries, DNA results that did not link either the victim or the accused to a condom recovered near the scene, and what it considered uncertainties regarding the cause of the victim’s PTSD.
The case dates back to an incident reported on 12th September 2024 at Trashigang Hospital.
The victim, who was undergoing treatment for epilepsy, alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by the doctor during two separate medical consultations.
According to the family’s account, she disclosed the first assault only after a second incident when her mother found the doctor’s consultation room locked from the inside while searching for her daughter.
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) charge-sheeted the case to Trashigang Dzongkhag Court on 18th February 2025, charging the doctor with rape of child above 12 years of age.
The Royal Bhutan Police forwarded the case to OAG on 6th November 2024.
