[2013] KEHC 1393 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was properly identified by the complainant, who knew him as a neighbour and schoolmate, and that the evidence of PW1 was corroborated by PW2. The appellant failed to demonstrate any inconsistencies or contradictions in the prosecution's case. The court held that the minimum...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1393 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Frankline Kibet; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 87 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Defilement, Identification Evidence, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Frankline Kibet
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence before the trial court was inconsistent and contradictory.
- 2 Whether the identification of the appellant was free from errors.
- 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of defilement to sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was properly identified by the complainant, who knew him as a neighbour and schoolmate, and that the evidence of PW1 was corroborated by PW2. The appellant failed to demonstrate any inconsistencies or contradictions in the prosecution's case. The court held that the minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment was prescribed by statute and was therefore not harsh or excessive. The appellant's defence, including the alibi and lack of medical examination, was considered but found unpersuasive in light of the corroborated prosecution evidence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The conviction and sentence of 15 years imprisonment are upheld.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2012
(Being an Appeal Against the Original Conviction and Sentence by the Honourable V. Karanja, Acting Senior Resident Magistrate at Bomet in Criminal Case No. 16 of 2012 in the Judgment Delivered on 7. 12. 2012)
FRANKLINE KIBET..........................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya Thursday 24th October, 2013)
JUDGMENT
The appellant is Frankline Kibet. He was charged with the offence of gang defilement contrary to Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and in alternative the second count of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Act. He was convicted as charged in the first count and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
The appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence. His grounds of appeal include that:
evidence before the trial court was inconsistent and contradictory;
his identification was not free from errors;
there was no evidence of defilement and the conviction was therefore not sustainable;
the sentence of 15 years imprisonment was excessive and harsh; and
the defence evidence was not considered.
The appellant submitted that he was not subjected to medical examination to determine his involvement in the alleged defilement and his evidence of alibi was not considered. The investigation officer did not visit the scene of the offence and the appellant submitted that such failure meant that the investigation did not confirm disturbance of the scene to support the occurrence of the crime as alleged. Finally, the appellant submitted that PW1 did not provide documentary evidence to show that she was a class 8 pupil at[particulars withheld] Primary School.
The learned state counsel Ms. Magoma opposed the appeal on behalf of the respondent. She made the following submissions:
The issue of identification did not come about because the appellant was known to the complainant PW1because they were neighbours and attended the same school.
The appellant had not established any inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
The minimum sentence being 15 years imprisonment, the sentence was not harsh or excessive.
PW2 corroborated PW1’s evidence and there was adequate evidence to convict the appellant as charged.
This court has considered the submissions made for the parties and examined the record and judgment by the honourable trial court. The appellant was known to PW1 and PW2 corroborated PW1’s evidence. The court finds that the submissions made for the respondent are valid.
Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
Signed, dated and delivered in court at Kericho this Thursday, 24th October, 2013.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE