[2017] KEHC 838 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court erred by ignoring the complainant's testimony in court, which denied sexual intercourse, and instead relied on her earlier police statement. There was no medical evidence of penetration during the relevant period, and the complainant's in-court testimony retracted her earlier...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 838 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Harrison Kamau Githinji; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 124 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Defilement, Evidence Evaluation, Appellate Review
- 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
Harrison Kamau Githinji
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for defilement was supported by sufficient evidence.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in relying on the complainant's police statement rather than her testimony in court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court erred by ignoring the complainant's testimony in court, which denied sexual intercourse, and instead relied on her earlier police statement. There was no medical evidence of penetration during the relevant period, and the complainant's in-court testimony retracted her earlier statement to the police. The conviction was therefore not supported by the evidence led before the trial court. The appellate court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentence, ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appellant's conviction is quashed.
- The sentence passed against the appellant is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 124 OF 2014
(From original conviction and sentence in Kangema
PM Criminal Case No 113 of 2014 – E M Kagoni, Ag SRM)
HARRISON KAMAU GITHINJI................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The Appellant Harrison Kamau Githinji was convicted after trial of defilement of a girl contrary to section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He has appealed against both conviction and sentence.
2. The conviction is challenged upon the main ground of lack of evidence to justify the conviction. Learned prosecution counsel does not support the conviction for the same reason.
3. I have read through the record of the trial court in order to evaluate the evidence and arrive at my own conclusions regarding the same. This is my duty as the first appellate court. I have borne in mind however, that I neither saw nor heard the witnesses myself, and I have given due allowance for that fact.
4. The complainant was aged about 16 years. The complainant (who testified as PW3) had ran away from home after quarrelling with her mother on the day of the alleged offence (14/03/2014). She found the Appellant who was her friend on the way. He gave her refuge for the night in his house. Her testimony in court was that she and the Appellant did not have sexual intercourse. By this testimony she retracted her statement given to the police to the effect that the Appellant had sexual intercourse with her. She told the court that she had told the so out of fear. It will be noted that what she had told the police in her statement came after what appeared to be cross-examination by the prosecutor – apparently without leave of the court!
5. The medical evidence tendered before the court was that the complainant was sexually active. However, there was no evidence of penetration in the relevant period.
6. For some inexplicable reason the trial court ignored the complainant’s testimony in court and chose to rely upon what she had told the police in her statement. The court thus convicted the Appellant not upon evidence led before it, but upon a statement given to the police earlier!
7. The conviction clearly cannot be supported and learned prosecution counsel properly conceded the appeal. I will allow the appeal in its entirety. The Appellant’s conviction is hereby quashed and the sentence passed against him set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2017
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2017