[2010] KEHC 1558 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had abandoned his appeal against conviction and only sought reduction of sentence without providing any mitigating factors or reasons. The court held that there was no justification to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, as the sentence was within the law and no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1558 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Chebon; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 106 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unnatural Offences, Sexual Offences, Grievous Harm, Sentencing, Appeals on Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Chebon
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive or warranted reduction.
- 2 Whether there were any mitigating factors justifying interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had abandoned his appeal against conviction and only sought reduction of sentence without providing any mitigating factors or reasons. The court held that there was no justification to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, as the sentence was within the law and no error or excessiveness was demonstrated. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the original sentence upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is marked as withdrawn.
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
53 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Civil Appeal 106 of 2009
CHARLES CHEBON:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPEALLANT
=VERSUS=
REPUBLIC:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the decision ofHon. H.M. NyagaESQ. Senior Resident Magistrate delivered on 16th April 2009 at theSeniorResident Magistrate’s Court atKabarnetinKabarnet SRM CRC. No. 96 of2009 on conviction and sentence)
JUDGMENT
I.Background
1. On the 26th September, 2008 at 12. 00 noon, the Complainant proceeded to her home.She decided to take a short cut to go home from Kabarnet and found the Appeallant and his wife standing at the entrance of their home.Both of them suddenly attacked her.She was pulled towards their home.The wife to the Appeallant who is also original 2nd accused attempted to stab her.She was not successful but she managed to damage the complainants little finger by breaking it.
2. The Complainant was held down by the 2nd original accused whilst the Appeallant sodomized her. The Complainant screamed but no one came to her aid.The two put her clothes back which was by now soiled and blood stained.She was warned not to tell anyone.
3. The Complainant made a report to the police.P.W.4, a police woman referred her to hospital for a medical examination.The Police woman took possession of her soiled clothes.
4. On the 24th January 2009 at 6. 30 p.m. members of public arrested and tied the two namely the appeallant and his wife.Theywere charged with the following offence:-
II.Charge
5. Unnatural Offence
Contrary to Section 162 of the Penal
Code
Particulars of Offence
On 26th September 2008 between in Baringo District within Rift Valley Province had Carnal knowledge of E. K against the order of nature.
Alternative Count
IndecentAct with an adult
Contrary to Section 11 (a) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of2006 revised edition 2007
Particulars
On 26th September 2008 between in Baringo District withinRift Valley Province unlawfully and indecently touchedE.K’s private parts namely anus.
Count II
Grievous Harm
Contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code
(Appeallant and another)
Particulars of offence
On 26th September 2008 betweenBaringo District within Rift Valley province jointly and unlawfully did grievous harm to E.K.
6. The appeallant and the original accused No. 2 were charged jointly with Count II.The two are related to each other as man and wife.
7. After their trial was heard, the appeallant was sentenced to:
Count I-10 years imprisonment
Count II-5 years imprisonment
The original second accused was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment but did not appeal against the conviction or sentence.
8. The Appeallant being aggrieved appealed against conviction and sentence.
III.Petition of Appeal
9. In his Petition of Appeal he raised only three points:
(a)That he pleaded not guilty to the offence
(b)That the charges were framed
(c)That there was no medicalevidence
10. On the day the appeal was called out, the appeallant informed the Court that he was satisfied with his conviction but he only asked that the sentence be reduced.
11. In reply the State opposed that the sentence be reduced.
IV.Findings
12. The appeal against conviction having been abandoned, this Court hereby marks the same as withdrawn.
13. As to sentence, no reason has been given by the apeallant to have the sentence reduced.There was no mitigating factors given.
14. This Court hereby finds that it will not interfere as to the sentence.The appeal is accordingly dismissed on sentence.
Dated this 1st day of September 2010 at ELDORET.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocate:
(i)J.K. Chirchir, Senior State Counsel instructed by the office of the Attorney General
for the State-Present
(ii)Charles Chebon, Appeallant in Person-absent