Agency: 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.
The Context
The mother of Lekden D. Dorji 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% to 90% 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.
A claim made in court was that Lekden also suffered from a form of autism spectrum disorder. Here again, in the international context it takes a team of doctors and experts to diagnose autism of any kind along with a battery of tests which Lekden was not subjected too either in Bhutan or outside.
Again, as per international research and data autistic people are not inherently violent. Evidence does not support autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a predisposition to crime or violence, and autistic individuals are, in fact, more likely to be victims of violence, bullying, and abuse than perpetrators. While some autistic people may have behavioral issues due to communication challenges there is no intentional violence or aggression. The link between autism and violence is another harmful myth.
Another defense made in court was that Lekden had a low IQ and here again internation research shows that it is not accurate or appropriate to generalize that low IQ people are violent. Intelligence is only one of many complex factors associated with an increased statistical risk of violent behavior across a large population, and it does not determine an individual’s character or actions.
It is true that Lekden struggled academically from a young age according to records and according to his mother was not aware he was doing something wrong when he hurt a cat for example. It was clear that Lekden suffered from something with his lack of empathy for hurting the cat like ‘psychopathy or sociopathy, certain psychiatric disorders, or some other brain condition, but his parents did not send him for medical diagnosis and treatment and instead tried things like meditation in India. Even if this was the case it would have to be a culmination of several factors both inherent and environmental that led to violence that night against the victim.
The verdict
During the trial, the defendant’s lawyer argued that he suffered from various mental disabilities, claiming that these conditions impaired his ability to understand his actions. The lawyer requested leniency or medical treatment under Section 119 of the Penal Code, and sought testimony from a psychiatrist of JDWNRH.
However, the Court 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.
A 2024 psychiatric evaluation by Dr Chencho 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.