Father insists his minor daughter was raped twice as OAG appeals Trashigang doctor’s acquittal

2026-03-16 - 11:05

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on 12th March 2026 appealed the acquittal of a Trashigang doctor in a rape case involving a minor to the High Court. Earlier, on 26th February 2026, the Trashigang Dzongkhag Court acquitted the 39-year-old doctor on the charge of rape of a child above 12 years of age on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the standard required under Bhutan’s Civil and Criminal Procedure Code. Officials from OAG shared that it has come to light that the doctor also had two prior allegations of sexual harassment against him. So far, it has been confirmed that one of the alleged victims is currently in Australia. The two complaints were lodged while he was in service as a doctor. Meanwhile, the father of the alleged minor victim said his daughter, who is currently repeating Class V, has remained firm in her claim that the doctor raped her. Speaking in a grieving tone, he told this paper that the Dzongkhag Court’s decision to acquit the doctor has left the family feeling that justice has not been served. He said that as an underprivileged family, they feel they did not have the means or support to pursue the case more effectively. According to him, his daughter has always been open and honest with her parents and has consistently maintained the same account of what she says happened to her. “Before informing the police about the misconduct, me and my wife repeatedly confirmed with our daughter. I was in the initial belief that since the doctor was a trusted figure who we look up to, he would never do such thing. However, our daughter confided in her mother that he raped her. Still to this day she says that the doctor had raped her twice,” the father of the minor said. He said that their daughter told the mother that she went through the sexual assault twice on two occasions in the course of treatment. She disclosed the incident to her mother after the second time she was allegedly raped. He said that during his first visit to the hospital, he accompanied her for a checkup but was asked to leave the room by the doctor. His daughter first told her mother that the medical professional allegedly locked the door, closed the windows and raped her. During the second checkup, when his wife accompanied the daughter, she alleged that she was asked by the medical staff to get free eye glasses from the hospital which she went to get as an eye patient. The daughter was with her, but the medical professional took her saying her health book was with him in his office. When the mother returned, she could not find her daughter. Suspecting something was wrong, she checked the doctor’s chamber and found it locked from inside. After knocking, her daughter eventually opened the door. Inside, the medical professional acted nonchalantly, even complimenting the mother on her eye glasses, and allegedly offering them Nu 300 for refreshments. It was then that the minor confided in her mother saying the doctor is not a good person as he raped her during the first checkup too. He said that still to this date, his daughter says that the doctor had raped her and he trusts that his daughter is not lying. He said that because their daughter is still attending school, they have not informed her about the judgement, particularly the court’s decision to acquit the doctor of the charges. He added that the verdict came as a surprise, as he had expected the doctor to face the relevant charges. He said his wife was also saddened by the judgement and told him that Ken Cho Sum would ultimately see the truth. He added that neither he nor his wife is educated and that they have little understanding of how such cases are handled, leaving them feeling helpless. Dzongkhag Court findings leading to the acquit Key findings that informed the decision by the Dzongkhag Court included medical evidence, DNA forensic results, psychiatric evaluation and victim’s statement. The minor underwent a medical examination approximately six hours after the complaint was filed. The medical report did not indicate recent vaginal penetration, bleeding, fresh hymenal injury, or physical trauma suggestive of struggle or self-defense on the minor girl’s body, and found only old hymenal tears noted as pre-existing injuries. Forensic analysis included six samples collected from the doctor and the minor for DNA forensic examination. Samples from the condom allegedly found at the scene did not identify DNA that matched either the victim or the defendant. Further, vaginal swabs and the minor’s underwear yielded only the victim’s DNA, with no male profile detected. Based on these findings, the court stated that there was no basis to establish that the doctor committed a sexual act against the minor. The DNA and forensic evidence failed to provide either direct or circumstantial proof of rape. A psychiatric evaluation was conducted by a psychiatrist and medical instructor from the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Referral Hospital, and the report noted that the victim openly recounted her experiences, displaying signs of distress, suffering, and anger. According to the report, the minor also recounted feeling frightened when seeing hospital staff, particularly those wearing white coats, and experienced sleep disturbances due to flashbacks of the alleged rape. The report had stated that her accounts and statements remained consistent, and that her comprehension, attention, decision-making, and thinking capacity were age-appropriately intact A psychiatric assessment noted that the victim displayed psychological distress and symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress, the Court, however, highlighted that the report did not establish that these symptoms were caused conclusively by the alleged rape or by other factors, or pre-existed. Questions over pre-existing medical conditions, including epilepsy, and the use of medications that are not exclusive indicators of PTSD further complicated the issue. Additionally, while a report from The PEMA Secretariat and Eastern Regional Referral Hospital indicated that the victim showed no memory of past events and history, this contradicted the JDWNRH psychiatric report which stated that her accounts remained consistent and that her comprehension and decision-making abilities were age-appropriately intact. The Court noted that the victim had been suffering from epilepsy for approximately four years, raising the possibility that her PTSD could have stemmed from that condition rather than from the alleged rape. Given these evidentiary gaps, the Court held that there was no solid basis for conviction. So, as per the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code which states that, “where guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been established to the Court’s satisfaction for the charge, the defendant shall be acquitted and released and have the conditions of his/her bail terminated”, the Court determined that the defendant shall be acquitted of the charge of rape of a child above the age of 12 years. However, in accordance with Section 205 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution may motion the Court for new trial based on newly discovered evidence or on other grounds. Background The family of the minor on 12th September 2024 accused the doctor of alleged rape during a medical treatment session in Trashigang. The complaint was reported by the minor’s mother from the hospital upon which the police team along with a forensic team immediately went and conducted a medical examination. Police discovered a condom from the scene. However, the DNA tests from condom and other evidence yielded negative results. Nevertheless, the minor’s statement, together with circumstantial evidence, pointed to the suspect and led to the charge-sheet. The minor is an epilepsy patient who at the time of the alleged incident was undergoing treatment under the care of the doctor. The Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) forwarded the case to OAG, with the probable charges of rape of a child above 12 years of age on 6th November 2024. Subsequently, the 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.