[2006] KEHC 447 (KLR)
The court found that the charge sheet was defective for omitting the word 'unlawful' and misstating the age of the complainant, both of which are essential elements under section 145(1) of the Penal Code. Additionally, the trial magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for receiving evidence from a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 447 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Njuki Muriithi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 45 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Defective Charge Sheet, Evidence of Child Witness, Corroboration, Alibi Defence, Medical Evidence
- 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
John Njuki Muriithi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the omission of the word 'unlawful' and incorrect age in the charge sheet rendered the charge defective.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate complied with the legal procedure for receiving evidence from a child of tender years.
- 3 Whether the conviction could be sustained in light of the medical evidence and the defence of alibi.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the charge sheet was defective for omitting the word 'unlawful' and misstating the age of the complainant, both of which are essential elements under section 145(1) of the Penal Code. Additionally, the trial magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for receiving evidence from a child of tender years as required by section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, and did not seek corroboration as required by section 124 of the Evidence Act. The medical evidence was also unreliable, and the defence of alibi was not considered. These cumulative procedural and substantive errors prejudiced the appellant and rendered the conviction unsafe. The appeal...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Criminal Appeal 45 of 2005
JOHN NJUKI MURIITHI…………………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………...………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant who was tried and convicted on a charge of Defilement of a girl contrary to section 145 (1) Penal code complains that the charge sheet was defective in that the particulars of charge omit the words “unlawful” as required under section 145 (1) and the age of a girl is 16 not 14 as stated in the charge. The old law was changed from 14 years to 16 years by Act of 5 of 2003.
The authorities cited in support Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2000- Achoki vs Republic as on the basis of offence of rape or attempted rape under section 141 (1) where it was held that omission of the words “unlawfully” renders the charge defective. It should be the same for offences under section 145 (1) where the offence is “unlawfully and carnally” defiles a girl under 16 years.
The other major complaint is that the learned Magistrate failed to comply with the procedure set out under sections 19 of Oaths and Statutory Declaration Act Cap 15 Laws of Kenya in receiving the evidence of a young child of tender years. In this respect he citied three authorities:-
1. Ochero Obagwa vs Republic Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2003 where it was held then non compliance with section 19 aforesaid may render conviction being quashed. The authority also refers to Evidence Act Section 124 where the evidence of a young child should be corroborated.
2. Johnson Muiruri vs Republic 1983 KLR 445 and Ouserio vs Repulic [1985] KLR 618 these two authorities are in support of this ground 3.
On these authorities the appellant argues that conviction cannot be upheld as the Trial Magistrate failed to comply with the provisions of the law. Furthermore the other ground argued is No. 5 which challenges the medical evidence the P3 form was not completed by the examiner and the notes relied upon were not produced in court. The evidence of Clinical Officer was also challenged that the girl admitted to having had sexual experience before- her hymen must have been raptured.
This appeal is conceded by State Counsel on quite different grounds that the defence of Alibi was not considered though supported by witnesses. He also faulted the evidence of PW8 which showed that the complainant was not liable. There was doubts about the prove of the case.
Upon considering the authorities cited and upon hearing the submissions of the Counsel for appellant and upon the State conceding this appeal it is my view that there are sufficient grounds to warrant orders allowing the appeal. It is clear the Trial Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of law as set out above thus prejudicing the appellant’s case.
I therefore allow the appeal and I quash conviction and set aside sentence.
The Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated the 1st March, of 2006.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE