[2013] KEHC 3416 (KLR)
The court held that the sentence of 14 years imprisonment was fair and appropriate given the aggravated nature of the offence, which involved violence and injury to the complainant. Although the appellant pleaded guilty and thus saved the court's time, the seriousness of the offence, including the lack of consent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3416 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Diesel Nduma M’Igweta; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 189 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- JW Lessit
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Sentencing, Plea of Guilty, Aggravating Factors
- 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
Diesel Nduma M’Igweta
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 14 years imprisonment for rape was excessive or unjust in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty and mitigating factors warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentence of 14 years imprisonment was fair and appropriate given the aggravated nature of the offence, which involved violence and injury to the complainant. Although the appellant pleaded guilty and thus saved the court's time, the seriousness of the offence, including the lack of consent and the physical injuries inflicted on the complainant, justified the sentence imposed. The appellant's health condition and plea for mercy did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Criminal Appeal 189 of 2007
[if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
DIESEL NDUMA M’IGWETA………………………………......…...APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant Diesel Nduma M’Igweta was charged with one count of rape of section 140(1) of the Penal Code and an alternative count of indecent assault contrary to section 144(1) of the Penal Code. The Appellant was found guilty on his own plea of guilty. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment on 30th October, 2007.
Being aggrieved by the sentence the Appellant filed this appeal. The Petition of appeal on all grounds challenged the evidence adduced before the lower court. That was not factual since the Appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge and therefore the conviction was not based on evidence but on his plea of guilty to the facts of the case.
When the appeal came up for hearing the Appellant abandoned his appeal against the conviction and argued that against the sentence. He urged that he had been sentenced. He urged that he had been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. He submitted that he was sick and had discovered he was HIV positive after sentence. He pleaded for mercy.
Mr. Mungai for the state did not oppose the appeal against sentence.
I have carefully considered the appeal.The Appellant was convicted of Rape contrary to S. 144(1) of the Penal Code. The facts of the prosecution as read together with the particulars of the charge are proof appellant had canal knowledge of the complainant against her will.The P3 form shows that even though the complainant was 52 years old and therefore a mature person, she had external injuries to the neck, face with blood stained cloths and internal injuries in the form of abrasions and lacerations on the vaginal wall. There was clearly no consent given and further the Appellant was rough in the manner in which he handled the complaint. The offence was in the circumstances aggravated.
A person convicted of this offence is liable to be imprisonment for life. The Appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. He has served 5 years so far.
Considering that a person convicted of the offence of Rape contrary to section 140 of the Penal Code is liable to imprisonment for life considering that Appellant injured the complainant during the execution of the offence charged, even though Appellant pleaded guilty to the offence thus saving courts time the offence was aggravated. The sentence was in the circumstances fair.
In the result the Appellant’s appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2013.
J. LESIIT
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]