[2020] KEHC 5884 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was safe and based on sound evidence, including corroborative medical testimony and the complainant's clear identification of the applicant, whom she knew well. The applicant's mere denial did not displace the prosecution's strong case. However, in considering the sentence, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 5884 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jacklight Nyambei Karamushu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 95 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
- Outcome
- sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sexual Offences Act, Sentencing Principles, Revision of 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
Jacklight Nyambei Karamushu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the applicant for defilement was based on sound evidence.
- 2 Whether the sentence of thirty years imprisonment was excessive and warranted revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was safe and based on sound evidence, including corroborative medical testimony and the complainant's clear identification of the applicant, whom she knew well. The applicant's mere denial did not displace the prosecution's strong case. However, in considering the sentence, the court acknowledged the applicant's status as a first offender and the mitigation advanced on his behalf. While the offence was aggravated by the complainant's special needs and the abuse of trust, the court determined that a sentence of thirty years was excessive. Exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, the court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a term of...
Court Disposition
sentence varied
Orders
- The sentence of thirty years imprisonment is set aside.
- The applicant is sentenced to ten years imprisonment from 18th August, 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.95 OF 2020
JACKLIGHT NYAMBEI KARAMUSHU........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................RESPONDENT
(Revision of the Original Sentence dated 18. 08. 2017 in Nanyuki Criminal Case No.117 of 2015– L. Mutai, CM)
21. 05. 2020
Before Justice H P G Waweru
In Chambers
ORDER ON REVISION
I have examined the record of the trial court following the request for revision by letter dated 05. 05. 2020 (Filed in Court on 11. 05. 2020) addressed to Court by the Convict’s Advocates.
1. The Convict herein, JACKLIGHT NYAMBEI KARAMUSHU, was convicted after trial of Defilement of a childcontrary to Section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No.3 of 2006. On 18. 08. 2017 he was sentenced to serve thirty (30) years imprisonment.
Conviction.
2. Contrary to the assertions of the learned counsel for the Convict, he was not convicted solely upon the testimony of the complainant. The trial court found that the Medical evidence tendered corroborated the Complainant’s story that she was defiled. The convict was a person she well knew. The convict never cross-examined the Complainant after she was offered to him to ask her questions.
3. The trial court also found that the complainant was not mistaken at all in her identification of the Convict, a person she knew very well as a kind of grandfather.
4. The trial court also considered the defence offered by the Convict and dismissed his mere denial of the offence as it did not in any way shake the very strong evidence presented by the prosecution. The court rightly rejected that defence.
5. I am satisfied that the conviction was founded on good and sound evidence; the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction is safe.
Sentence
6. As for the sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment, the trial court noted that the Convict was a first offender. However, the offence was compounded by the fact that the Complainant was a child with special needs. Further, the Convict had taken advantage of the child’s familiarity with him. The child was aged 14 years at the time of the offence. The Convict is said to be about 35 years old now. That means that when he was sentenced on 18. 08. 2017 he was approaching 32 years.
7. Everyone deserves a second chance. I have noted the further mitigation given by the Convict’s Advocates.
8. I will in the event set aside the sentence of thirty (30) years meted out to the Convict and substitute therefor a sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment from the date he was sentenced, that is, 18th August, 2017. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NANYUKI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2020
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
NANYUKI HIGH COURT