[2010] KEHC 1311 (KLR)
The court found that the age of the complainant, a critical element in the offence of defilement of a child, was not properly assessed by a qualified medical practitioner. The only indication of age was in the P3 form, filled by the Officer Commanding Station, who is not qualified to assess age. No birth certificate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1311 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Job Ewono Oteba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 31 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction and sentence set aside; retrial ordered
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Defilement of a Child, Sexual Offences Act, Age Assessment, Evidence Contradictions
- 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
Job Ewono Oteba
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the age of the complainant was properly assessed as required for a conviction of defilement of a child.
- 2 Whether contradictions in the prosecution evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the age of the complainant, a critical element in the offence of defilement of a child, was not properly assessed by a qualified medical practitioner. The only indication of age was in the P3 form, filled by the Officer Commanding Station, who is not qualified to assess age. No birth certificate or other documentary evidence was produced to prove the complainant's age. Since the sentence for defilement is determined by the age of the victim, and the court must be satisfied that the complainant is a child before conviction, the absence of proper age assessment rendered the conviction and sentence unsustainable. The court also noted flaws in the trial process and...
Court Disposition
conviction and sentence set aside; retrial ordered
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
- A retrial shall be held within seven days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
(Appeal arising from BGM CMC CRC NO.2039/09)
JOB EWONO OTEBA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted of the offence of defilement of a child contrary to section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment with hard labour.
Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence of Bungoma Resident Magistrate the accused lodged this appeal.
Mr. Ocharo arguedthe appeal which raises two pertinent issues.Firstly, that the age of the complainant was not assessed and that the evidence was riddled with contradictions.The appeal was opposed by the state who argued that the P3 form gave the age of the complainant and that there were no contradictions in the evidence.
PW6 is the clinical officer who examined the complainant and produced the P3 form. The witness did not assess the age of the complainant.Part 1 of the P3 form was filled by the Officer Commanding Malaba Police Station (O.C.S) being the request for examination of the complainant.It is in this part that the age of the complainant was indicated as fourteen (14) years.The O.C.S is not a qualified medical practitioner and cannot assess the age of a person.In an offence of defilement of a child, the sentence is determined by the age of the victim.If the age is not assessed, the court cannot impose sentence. Before conviction, the court must be satisfied that the complainant is a child.In the absence of age assessment the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.The father of the complainantdid not produce a birth certificate of the child which would have come in handy where the age was not assessed.
I find that with the existing flaws in the trial, the conviction and sentence must be set aside and I hereby so order.The trial took less than one and a half (1 ½) years and a retrial would not cause injustice to the appellant.I order that a retrial be held within seven (7) days.
The appellant shall be detained in custody pending plea before the Chief Magistrate, Bungoma.
F.N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Judgment dated and delivered on the 19th day of October, 2010 in the presence of the appellant, his counsel Mr. Ocharo and the State Counsel Mrs. Leting.
F.N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE