The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The Paro District court on 28th June, 2024 sentenced 2 male students of Paro College (Paro NIE) to prison terms with Thinley, being charged for rape and another student named Robin, convicted for aiding and abetting his friend in the offence of rape of the victim.
The Court convicted and sentenced Thinley to 8 years, 4 months and 12 days of imprisonment after deducting one month and 18 days of his stay under custody that is from the date of arrest which is 9th June, 2023 until the date of his bail 27th July, 2023.
The defendant’s act of having sexual intercourse with the victim against her consent constitutes a violation of section 177 of the PCB, which as per section 178 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act of Bhutan, 2021, is an offence of a third-degree felony.
Also, in accordance with Section 187.3 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code of Bhutan, the rape convict’s friend Robin Rai was charged guilty for aiding and abetting his friend in the commission of the offence of rape of the victim.
The offence of aiding and abetting in the commission of an offence of rape is a fourth-degree felony as per Section 135(a) of the PCB and accordingly, he was sentenced to four years and 3 months of imprisonment in accordance with Section 11 of the PCB.
However, since he has been detained for one month and eighteen days, he still has to serve the remaining sentence of four years, one month and 12 days in prison.
On 9th June 2023, the Royal Bhutan Police received a complaint from the victim against Thinley, alleging that he had raped her when she was passed out after drinking.
During the enquiry, the Police discovered from Thinley that Robin had also engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim.
Upon investigation, the police found out that the two defendants and the victim got together at Robin’s house, where they drank alcohol until 3 AM in the morning, after which both defendants had committed sexual intercourse with the victim.
Accordingly, the OAG charged the defendants for rape of the victim under Section 177(d) of the PCB.
However, the victim reported the crime only against Thinley and not against Robin. Also, evidences proved that Robin engaged in consensual sexual relationship.
Thinley confessed in his statement that he went in and had sex with the victim without her consent, when Robin solicited him to go in as he came to dispose the condom.
In the statement provided by Thinley on 12.06.2023, it was stated that he paid for the ‘Ipill’ out of guilt that he used her. The court finds this as evidence of the defendant having sex with the victim.
The messages between Thinley and the victim on social media also indicates that the defendant felt wrong and regrets what he did. It states, “I was really sorry that I was blind” and “I will confess it was my fault and sorry for my bad deed.” Thus, the court found that the victim’s accusations conform with the defendant’s statements which thereby establish to the court’s satisfaction that the defendant had sex with the victim against her consent.
In the case of Robin, the court did not find Robin guilty of rape as the victim only reported the crime against Thinley and not against Robin.
The voice recordings presented by the OAG as evidence to prove that the victim was raped, only establishes that Robin engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim but nothing about having done it without her consent.
In the messages exchanged between Robin and the victim, the victim told him that she has not reported him to the Police and also asked him to tell that they did not engage in sexual intercourse if enquired by the Police.
Thus, it is established that the victim was aware and conscious and consented to having sexual intercourse with Robin.
In view of the above, the court said OAG failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Robin committed sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent while she was mentally incapacitated under the influence of alcohol.
However, the court said Robin knowingly and willingly assisted Thinley Dorji to have sexual intercourse with the victim and is therefore guilty for aiding and abetting Thinley in the commission of the offence of rape of the victim.
Initially the Paro College did not remove the two students even though a police report found rape had been committed saying a verdict has not come yet. This paper highlighted the issue and the college was asked to remove the two students, which it did.
