The Bhutanese Leading the way.
On 27th March 2025, the High Court (HC) sentenced 39-year-old Sonam Norbu to life imprisonment for the murder of 24-year-old Namgay Dolkar, overturning the Thimphu Dzongkhag Court’s previous judgment, which had sentenced him to approximately 15 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter.
The father of Namgay Dolkar, Singye Wangchuk said that justice has been done by the High Court and he hopes the Supreme Court will also uphold justice if Sonam Norbu appeals. Singye said that if such a punishment is not given then more of such crimes will occur.
While the father said this the violent and sudden murder of his daughter has taken a major toll on the father who for all purposes has slipped into severe depression. Singye said there is not a moment he does not think about his daughter and he is barely functional without her.
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) appealed the Thimphu District Court’s ruling, issued on 13th December 2024, seeking a murder conviction.
The HC reviewed the case and concluded that sufficient circumstantial and corroborative evidence proved the accused had premeditated malice.
The court acknowledged that no direct eyewitness testimony or confession was available. However, based on Section 5(b) and Section 88 of the Evidence Act of Bhutan 2005, it determined that circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointed to a premeditated murder.
Sonam Norbu initially claimed that he never met the victim but with CCTV footage emerging he said a fight broke out between him and the victim on 13th August 2023, during which he strangled her. He further alleged that she later jumped into the river to commit suicide.
However, this defense was rejected due to multiple inconsistencies and the presence of extensive injuries on the victim’s body. The accused’s failure to take life-saving measures or report the incident to authorities further strengthened the prosecution’s argument.
On 14th August 2023, during an investigation by the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), Sonam Norbu initially denied meeting the victim on the day of the crime, falsely claiming that she had traveled to Nepal. This misleading statement delayed the discovery of the victim’s body and contributed to the court’s conclusion that Sonam Norbu had deliberately tried to cover up the crime.
Based on these factors, it was determined that the victim did not commit suicide but was deliberately killed by the suspect, as demonstrated by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that fully satisfied the court’s requirements.
However, according to Section 138 of the Bhutan Penal Code 2004, the definition of murder required a premeditated malice, and this condition was not met because although the prosecution claimed the victim was taken in the defendant’s vehicle from an area not visible on CCTV footage in front of her house to the crime scene via Yusipang, this remains doubtful and there was no conclusive evidence that the victim was definitely taken there.
Therefore, the murder charge was concluded in accordance with Section 187.3 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code of Bhutan 2001 to a voluntary manslaughter offense by the Thimphu District Court, which the High Court reviewed.
The High Court said the prosecution presented several key pieces of evidence demonstrating premeditated malice.
The victim sustained severe bruises and fractures, indicating violent force beyond self-inflicted wounds or suicide. The medical report confirmed death due to asphyxiation caused by fatal neck pressure.
Also, if the victim had indeed jumped into the water to commit suicide, the accused’s failure to attempt any life-saving measures is considered an attempt to conceal evidence or evade the law. Any reasonable person in such a situation would instinctively try to save a life, especially if it were someone they cared about.
The accused’s failure to do so provides circumstantial evidence that the victim was killed by the accused.
Moreover, if the victim had truly committed suicide by jumping into the water, the accused’s failure to urgently report the incident to nearby residents, the victim’s family and relatives, or relevant authorities provides circumstantial evidence that the victim was killed by the accused.
Sonam Norbu initially denied meeting the victim but later changed his story, revealing contradictions that suggested intent to mislead investigations.
On 14th August 2023, when questioned by the RBP, Sonam Norbu had initially lied, claiming he had not met the victim the earlier day and that the victim had gone to Nepal. Later, upon further questioning, he changed his story, saying he had gone to pick up the victim at the NPPF colony but didn’t find her there, and after searching, met her at Post Card Dewa and drove together in his car, where a fight broke out.
CCTV footage and mobile communication records confirmed that Norbu picked up the victim from the NPPF colony on 13th August 2023. His vehicle was seen leaving Thimphu and later returning after the estimated time of the crime.
The recovery of the victim’s body from the Wang Chu River provided circumstantial evidence that the accused killed the victim somewhere between the NPPF colony in Thimphu and the final location at Kariphu, then disposed of the body in the river to conceal the crime.
There is no evidence of any severe hardships or extraordinary circumstances in the victim’s life that would have led her to take her own life. This lack of evidence made the claim of suicide implausible and provides circumstantial evidence that the victim was killed by the accused.
Although Sonam Norbu’s defense team tried to convince the court that the victim had a history of self-harm and was mentally unstable, suggesting she might have committed suicide, the medical report showed no such health issues or records. This discrepancy makes the suicide claim unlikely and provides circumstantial evidence that the accused killed the victim.
In his later statements to the RBP, Sonam Norbu admitted that although he did not intentionally kill the victim, his actions led to her death. He showed awareness of the varying degrees of punishment for homicide offenses, anticipating that he might be charged with involuntary manslaughter. This awareness suggests circumstantial evidence that the accused killed the victim with premeditated malice.
Messages exchanged between Sonam Norbu and the victim on 12th August 2023, showed that he had planned to meet her the next day. Conflicts in their relationship, combined with evidence of an attempt to eliminate her, pointed to premeditated intent.
Regarding the definition of murder requiring “premeditated malice” as mentioned above, the term “premeditated” does not specify a time limit.
Initially, the District court could only suspect, but not prove, that the accused deliberately took the victim from her residence in his vehicle to the crime scene. Therefore, the charge was altered to voluntary manslaughter.
A High Court review of the communication records exchanged between Sonam Norbu and the victim reveals that on 12th August 2023, Sonam Norbu sent a message to the victim via Telegram asking “When shall we meet tomorrow?” This indicates that he planned to meet Namgay Dolkar on 13th August 2023, the day of the crime. This provides circumstantial evidence that Sonam Norbu had premeditated the killing of Namgay Dolkar.
Sonam Norbu claimed that on the day of the crime incident, they had planned to meet at the Football restaurant in Thimphu, and he had already booked a room, but Namgay Dolkar refused to go. He then went to the NPPF colony to pick her up but couldn’t find her, so he searched various places and finally met her at Post Card Dewa.
However, according to the messages sent by Sonam Norbu, the room was booked at 12:08 pm and cancelled at 5:12 pm. Before that, at 5:08 pm, Sonam Norbu had already arrived at the NPPF colony area to pick up the victim. This provides circumstantial evidence that he met the victim at her residence in the NPPF colony and took her in his vehicle.
The claim that he couldn’t find the victim at the NPPF colony and met her at Post Card Dewa after searching various places was contradicted by CCTV footage evidence.
CCTV footage exposed that at 5:08pm, Sonam Norbu arrived at the NPPF colony in his Prado vehicle to pick up Namgay Dolkar. At 5:12 pm, she was seen leaving her house and coming to the road.
At 5:14 pm, Namgay Dolkar was seen crossing the road and at 5:15 pm, Sonam Norbu’s vehicle was seen parked on the road at the entrance of the NPPF colony area.
This evidence shows that Sonam Norbu took the victim from the NPPF colony in his vehicle, drove to various places, and finally to Kariphu, with Sonam Norbu returning back to Thimphu city through Thimphu Gate at 9:20 pm. This provides circumstantial evidence that Sonam Norbu took Namgay Dolkar from the NPPF colony in his vehicle and killed her.
Investigation into phone records show that the last message exchanged between the two was on 13th August 2023 at 5:08 pm when Sonam Norbu informed Namgay Dolkar that he had arrived at the NPPF colony.
There was no further communication, suggesting they met there. If Sonam Norbu’s claim were true that he didn’t find the victim at the NPPF colony and met her at Post Card Dewa, there should have been further messages after 5:08 pm or phone calls about where the victim was or arrangements to meet elsewhere.
Moreover, no evidence was tendered that the victim travelled from the NPPF colony to the Post Card Dewa by a particular conveyance or car.
The absence of such messages provides circumstantial evidence that they met at the NPPF colony and the victim got into Sonam Norbu’s vehicle.
Additionally, Sonam Norbu’s decision to turn back at Kabesa Drabchu while returning to Thimphu and go to the crime scene provides circumstantial evidence that he had the intention to eliminate the victim.
According to the statement provided by Sonam Norbu’s wife, on the same day, she and Sonam Norbu went to Pamtsho to meet her ailing mother. He then left around 2 pm saying he had office work.
Considering that at 5:08 pm, Sonam Norbu arrived at the NPPF colony to pick up the victim, took her in his vehicle, committed the crime, and returned home after 9 pm, this provides circumstantial evidence that Sonam Norbu deliberately took the victim in his vehicle and killed her.
Based on the circumstantial evidence, the High Court ruled that the victim’s death was a deliberate act of murder with premeditated malice, with a First-Degree Felony punishment.
The court determined that the crime was not committed under sudden impulse, coercion, or mental impairment and that Sonam Norbu exhibited deliberate cruelty.
As a result, the Thimphu District Court’s ruling was overturned, and Sonam Norbu was sentenced to life imprisonment. Additionally, the court ordered him to pay compensation to the parents of the victim, as per Section 7.2 of the Bhutan Penal Code 2004.
The verdict sets a significant legal precedent, reinforcing the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct testimony is unavailable.
