Supreme Court’s dismisses Lekden D. Dorji’s appeal in Changangkha murder case and the dilemma now

2026-03-23 - 08:41

On 17th March 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Lekden D. Dorji’s lawyer in the Changangkha murder case of March 2024. The Thimphu District Court on 29th October 2025, sentenced Lekden D. Dorji to life imprisonment for the murder of a 25-year-old women in March 2024, at Changangkha, Thimphu. This was also upheld by the High Court later, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and life sentence handed down by the lower courts after finding no legal or evidentiary basis to overturn the judgment. A Worried Mother Lekden’s mother has raised concerns about her son’s ability to cope in prison, claiming that he has an intellectual disability. She said she fears he may be vulnerable to bullying by other inmates and may not be able to respond appropriately due to what she described as his limited mental capacity. She added that prolonged stress could also lead to unpredictable behaviour. She said she fears that her son could “lash out and pose a danger to other prisoners who do not understand his condition.” Describing his condition, she said that although he is an adult by age, he remains dependent on others for basic daily routines such as eating and personal hygiene. She expressed concern that imprisonment would be particularly difficult for him. The mother also questioned whether adequate medical evaluation was conducted during the legal proceedings. She claimed that a comprehensive forensic psychiatric assessment was not carried out and that her son was not administered an IQ test. Lekden’s defense lawyer had argued in court to apply Section 25 of the Penal Code of Bhutan 2004 which says “Civil commitment in lieu of imprisonment or sentence” under specific conditions related to mental illness. The defence further argued that the accused’s mental condition should be considered in sentencing and sought a reduction of the charge to a lesser offence. The defence also submitted that the family was willing to bear the cost of institutional care, but this was not accepted by the courts. Defense Court Arguments The defense lawyer had tried to argue its case under section 119 of the Penal Code that has to do with mentally disabled persons. Section 119 says, “A defendant shall have the defense of mental disability if, at the time of the conduct, on account of a mental disability, the defendant lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirement of the law.” A legal expert who met the defendant while in prison said that Lekden suffered from some kind of impairments and disability in his observation. The mother said that the courts even disregarded the witness statements given by his class teacher who knew of his intellectual state and an organization that had admitted him. The legal expert said that in other countries, there is a well-developed jurisprudence and application of forensic psychiatric assessment which is not there in Bhutan. The expert said that Bhutan does not have mental asylums, and so mentally unfit and even disabled people are sent to jail with other inmates. The mother claimed that he had schizophrenia like symptoms from a young age imagining voices and people. However, the family never got a proper diagnosis done for him even outside Bhutan as there is no medical certification to prove it. It must also be clarified, here, that the vast majority of people with schizophrenia are not violent or dangerous, and the perception that they are is a common and harmful myth. Anywhere from 85 percent to 90 percent of people with schizophrenia never engage in violent acts, and those that do are more likely to do harm to themselves. People with schizophrenia are, in fact, 14 times more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. District Court Findings The District Court said it found no credible evidence to prove mental incompetence. The earliest medical record from 2012 described the defendant as slow in learning and comprehension, but capable of performing normal activities. Also outlined in the court verdict, a 2024 psychiatric evaluation by Dr Chencho Dorji confirmed no signs of psychosis or delusion. When the psychiatrist testified before the Court in March 2025, he clarified that when the RBP asked him about the individual’s mental health and his potential culpability in the crime, he said he was not in a position to comment on his culpability as this requires a thorough forensics assessment which includes a detailed investigation, forensic reports and professional expertise that he does not possess. Dr Chencho told the court that in countries like Australia, forensic specialists and psychologists apply a battery of tests to measure IQ, and forensic psychiatrists assess and individual’s culpability based on detailed investigations and interviews. “Unfortunately, such specialists are not available in Bhutan, which limited my ability to make a conclusive statement on the matter,” said Dr Chencho. Supreme Court Basis for Dismissal The Supreme Court of Bhutan, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the findings of the lower court on the grounds that the prosecution had established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As reflected in the dismissal order, the defendant approached the victim on 31st March 2024 at approximately 3:00 am while she was in an intoxicated and vulnerable state, with the intention of engaging in sexual intercourse. He forcibly took her into a taxi and transported her to his residence. Upon arrival at the parking area, he threatened the victim, compelled her to exit the vehicle, and physically dragged her out. It was at this point that he attempted to remove her undergarment with the intent to commit rape. When the victim resisted, the defendant violently assaulted her, ultimately causing her death. The Court found that these facts were conclusively proven, thereby justifying the charge of first-degree murder. In light of the gravity of the offence and the defendant’s evident lack of restraint in committing such a heinous act, the sentence of life imprisonment was deemed appropriate and proportionate. The Supreme Court said it carefully examined the statements of the defendant, the testimonies of witnesses, and all documentary and electronic evidence submitted in this case. Defense Arguments In the Court, the defense had submitted medical reports to support the claim of intellectual disability. The defense said that in his statement, Dr Chencho Dorji did not merely assert that the defendant has learning difficulties. Rather, he noted that although he had not formally diagnosed the defendant with an intellectual disability, his recommendation was based on pre-existing medical records from hospitals in India, which indicate that the defendant has a Borderline Intelligence Quotient (IQ). The defense said that if the expertise of Dr Chencho Dorji is open to scrutiny, it is inconsistent to disregard the professional integrity of other medical professionals involved in evaluating the defendant. The defense said that while the Court has emphasized that the defendant is not legally insane; however, the defense has never contested this finding. The defense argument was premised solely on the defendant’s intellectual disability. The defense has asked if a person with intellectual disability is subjected to a life sentence without consideration of their mental capacity, the question arises as to what justice is truly being served. The defense had argued that the principle of proportionality and humane treatment under the law requires that the Court take into account the defendant’s diminished cognitive abilities, both in evaluating culpability and in determining an appropriate sentence. Ignoring this factor undermines the very purpose of equitable justice and disregards established medical and testimonial evidence regarding the defendant’s intellectual capacity, according to the defense.