Appellate court upholds 20-year sentence for man found guilty of defilement

The Court of Appeal in Nyeri has upheld a 20-year prison sentence imposed on a man convicted of defiling a 12-year-old girl, ruling that both the conviction and sentence were based on sound evidence and proper legal procedure.

In its judgment, the appellate court dismissed the man’s second appeal, concluding that the testimonies presented during the trial were credible and the identification of the perpetrator was beyond a reasonable doubt.

The events date back to the evening of November 17, 2014, when the young girl left her home to look for her younger brother, who had not returned.

According to her testimony, she met the accused, a neighbor she already knew, who claimed he could help her find the boy.

Instead of leading her to her brother, he lured her toward a bushy area. She recounted how he overpowered her, removed her clothes, and defiled her despite her cries for help.

After the ordeal, he warned her not to tell anyone, threatening her with harm if she did.

The terrified girl, however, ran home and confided in the family’s housekeeper, and later told her mother when she returned that evening.

“When he was finished, he warned her that he would kill her if she revealed what had happened to her. He took her home, and she immediately told their house help what had befallen her,” read part of the testimony in the judgment.

The mother testified that she noticed the child was visibly distressed and found signs of injury on her body.

She immediately took the girl to a nearby hospital for medical examination and reported the matter to the police.

A medical officer confirmed in court that the child’s injuries were consistent with the incident described.

The child’s birth certificate was also produced to confirm that she was 12 years old at the time, a critical factor in determining the severity of the offence.

The police investigating officer testified that the accused was arrested after a report was made and statements were taken from the girl and her mother.

In court, the girl identified the man as the person who had defiled her. Her recognition of him, as someone she had seen regularly in the neighbourhood, was a key element of the prosecution’s case.

The accused denied all the allegations.

He offered an unsworn statement in his defence, alleging that he had been falsely accused and that he was at work during the time of the incident. He did not call any witnesses.

“At the close of the prosecution case and upon being put on his defence, the appellant stated in an unsworn statement that he was a farmer. On the material day, he was at a school as a cleaner but was arrested 4 days later for an offence he knew nothing about. According to him, the charges were fabricated,” part of the judgment read.

After hearing both sides, the trial magistrate found the girl’s testimony credible and consistent with the medical evidence.

The magistrate noted that the child’s account of the events was detailed, and her ability to identify her attacker left little room for doubt. The trial court convicted the man and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the man appealed to the High Court.

In his appeal, he argued that the charge sheet was defective, that the prosecution failed to call key witnesses, and that the evidence of a single identifying witness, the child, was unreliable. He also claimed that the sentence was excessive.

The High Court, however, upheld the conviction and sentence, agreeing with the trial court that the evidence was overwhelming and that the child’s testimony was sufficient when supported by medical evidence and her mother’s account.

Still dissatisfied, the man lodged a second appeal at the Court of Appeal.

“The appellant is still dissatisfied and has filed this appeal through a homemade 'Intended Grounds of Appeal' where he says that the Judge on first appeal erred in 'both law and facts' by not finding that identification was not proved to the required standard," the judgment stated.

He also challenged the 20-year sentence, arguing it was harsh.

The Court of Appeal, however, found no merit in his arguments.

The judges emphasised that recognition is generally more reliable than identification of a stranger, particularly when the perpetrator is known to the victim.

They noted that the child’s testimony was unwavering and that her recognition of the man was supported by medical evidence and her mother's observations.

The court held that the absence of the house help’s testimony did not weaken the case since the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate judges also reaffirmed that in sexual offence cases, the testimony of a victim can be enough to secure a conviction if the court believes it is truthful, consistent, and reliable. T

They further emphasised that the credibility of a witness, especially in sensitive cases, is largely determined by the trial court, which has the advantage of observing the witness’s behaviour and responses firsthand.

“We find no reason to doubt the trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s evidence,” the judges stated.

Regarding the sentence, the judges explained that a sentence can only be interfered with if it is illegal, manifestly excessive, or based on a misapprehension of the law.

“We started this judgment by identifying our mandate in a second appeal; that was because when the appeal was called for hearing, all that the appellant told us was: “I ask for a reduction of sentence. That is all.” As we have seen, the severity of the sentence is a matter of fact, and we are not permitted in law to go into matters of fact,” the appellate court ruled.

The court found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed it in its entirety