The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The Criminal Bench of the Thimphu District Court today sentenced businessman Sonam Norbu (39) of voluntary manslaughter of Namgay Dolkar (24) on the evening of 13th August 2023.
The sentencing is for 14 years 11 months and 29 days. Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the second degree and has sentencing from 9 to under 15 years.
Voluntary manslaughter is defined in the Penal Code as, “A defendant shall be guilty of the offence of voluntary manslaughter if the defendant: (a) Possess the intention to kill but without premeditated malice, acts under the violence of sudden passion occasioned by some great provocation such that a reasonable person would be induced to cause the death of other person; or (b) With vicious intent to cause serious bodily injury to a person causes the death of that person,” as stated in the Penal Code.
Voluntary manslaughter is one degree below murder. The court felt the evidence was not strong or clear enough to convict him for murder which is a felony of the first degree with a minimum of 15 years to a maximum of life imprisonment.
The OAG is expected to appeal as they charged Sonam with murder.
Sonam Norbu (39)
Background
The last that Namgay Dolkar’s father Singye Wangchuk saw of her was around the evening at 5:30 pm on Sunday the 13 August, 2023 when she left her house above the NPPF colony to go outside.
Singye was worried when his daughter did not come back home at night.
He stayed up the whole night calling her phone, but each time it said her phone is not reachable.
He filed a missing person’s complaint with the police the next day on 14th August 2023 and went looking for her. The police based on Namgay’s call record found the last few calls were made to Sonam’s number.
When Sonam was questioned by the police, he had initially said that Namgay Dolkar had wanted to meet him on Sunday, and so he booked a hotel room at Hotel Football, but she did not turn up and so he cancelled the booking.
He confessed to the police that he was already married with children, and that he had told her there would be problems at home but she did not listen. He claimed that she ‘tortured him.’
He said on the evening of Sunday evening he went to Pamtsho to see his wife’s sick mother, and then he went back home to Changzamtog.
When the police confronted him with CCTV evidence of his car moving towards her house and exiting Thimphu gate and coming back around 9 pm he said he was looking for her at their dating sites since she did not turn up.
Sonam changed his story again when Namgay’s body was found in the swollen river which had not been able to carry her body away as her body got stuck on a log.
Sonam again changed his story saying he met Namgay Dolkar at a road intersection to Postcard Dewa Hotel just around 500 meters before Khasadrapchu, and from there they went on a drive to Khariphu, where they drove below the road towards the bridge and parked at a parking area just before the Khariphu bridge.
Sonam claimed to the police that there Namgay tried to strangle herself with the car seat belt, and he tried to stop her and in the process also squeezed her neck in anger. He said she then came out of the car and jumped into the river.
Sonam neither attempted to rescue her nor did he call anybody for help. Instead he drove back to Thimphu. He said he kept quiet as he thought he would get in trouble.
Sonam’s suicide story about Namgay was disproved by the post mortem report which showed her death due to strong pressure on the neck along with strong pressure over her mouth and that her death happened before her body even hit the water.
She had multiple bruises on her neck, jaw, upper chest, shoulder, left hand, left thigh and inner thigh, signs of smothering, and strangulation marks all showing a violent and forced death.
Testimonies from the family and friends, given to this paper, did not show Namgay to be suicidal in nature and in fact she had planned a trip with a female friend to Nepal in September and she also had plans to go to Australia.
OAG Case Brief
Facts
The defendant, was charged with the murder of his paramour/victim after her body was discovered 500 meters away from the Khariphu Bridge alongside the river on August 14, 2023. Earlier that day, the victim’s father had reported her missing to the police. Call records revealed that the defendant was the last person to contact the victim. During initial interrogation, the defendant claimed that although they had planned to meet on the day of her disappearance, the meeting was later recalled and he further alleged that the victim even had plans to travel to Nepal.
After the victim’s body was recovered, the police arrested the defendant, who then admitted that they had met on the day in question. He confessed they had driven to the Khariphu Bridge area, a spot they frequently visited. The defendant described an argument escalating into a physical altercation, during which the victim allegedly struck him. He stated that he restrained her by placing his hands around her neck but released her after she “calmed down.” According to the defendant, the victim then exited the car, threatened to jump, and ultimately leaped off the bridge. In panic, the defendant fled the scene without informing authorities and have returned home to his wife.
Judgment:
The court altered the charges and convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter, rejecting his claim that the victim’s death was a suicide. The conviction was based on the following circumstantial evidence, which satisfied the four litmus tests established in Dorji Wangdi v. OAG .
Motive and Relationship Dynamics:
Evidence of an illicit relationship between the defendant and the victim revealed that the victim often threatened to expose their affair to the defendant’s family and colleagues. Text message exchanges and the defendant’s voluntary statement demonstrated that the relationship was marked by jealousy, insecurity, and frequent violent arguments. The defendant’s desire to distance himself from the relationship aggravated tensions, which the victim resisted.
Events Leading to the Incident:
On the day of the incident, text messages indicated a heated argument and deteriorating relations between the two. After the defendant picked up the victim, a violent altercation ensued, during which the defendant, acting under sudden passion and provocation, strangled and smothered the victim. Forensic evidence and the injuries sustained by the victim corroborated this sequence of events.
Post-Incident Conduct:
The defendant failed to report the victim’s alleged suicide or seek assistance from nearby residents, undermining his claim of innocence. Instead, he disposed of the body in the river during the peak of the rainy season, an act indicative of an attempt to conceal the crime. He misled investigators during the missing person inquiry by falsely stating that the victim might have traveled to Nepal.
Forensic Findings and Chain of Events:
Although forensic analysis was inconclusive on the precise cause of death, the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s conduct, conclusively leads to homicide over suicide. While the prosecution initially charged the defendant with murder, they were unable to establish premeditation due to a lack of evidence. Consequently, the court convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter.
Considering the aggravating circumstances including the concealment of the crime, misleading of investigators, and prolonging of court proceedings through false claims, the court imposed the maximum sentence for voluntary manslaughter: 14 years, 11 months, and 29 days of imprisonment.
