[2018] KEHC 8603 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge of attempted defilement beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's evidence was credible, corroborated by her sister and medical evidence. The appellant was known to the complainant and her sister, and the incident occurred in daylight. The appellant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8603 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Wango Omondi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 90 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed in part; conviction and sentence on principal count affirmed; alternative count quashed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Attempted Defilement, Grievous Harm, Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence
- 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
Joseph Wango Omondi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the charge of attempted defilement beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the evidence identifying the appellant was credible and sufficient.
- 3 Whether the appellant's alibi defence raised reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge of attempted defilement beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's evidence was credible, corroborated by her sister and medical evidence. The appellant was known to the complainant and her sister, and the incident occurred in daylight. The appellant's disappearance from the village after the incident further supported his guilt. The alibi was considered and found to be false when weighed against the prosecution's evidence. The conviction and minimum sentence on the principal count were affirmed, while the conviction and sentence on the alternative count were quashed as the principal count had been proved.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed in part; conviction and sentence on principal count affirmed; alternative count quashed
Orders
- The conviction and sentence on the principal count of attempted defilement are affirmed.
- The conviction and sentence on the alternative count of causing grievous harm are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT SIAYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2016
BETWEEN
JOSEPH WANGO OMONDI....................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC............................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal against the original conviction and sentence
dated 12th August 2016 in Criminal Case No. 226 of 2015
at Ukwala Law Courts before Hon. C. N. Wanyama, RM)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, JOSEPH WANGO OMONDI, was charged, tried and convicted of two counts. The first was that of attempted defilement contrary to section 9(1)and(2) of the Sexual Offences Act and the alternative count was causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya). He was sentenced to 10 years on the first count and 3 years on the alternative count with both sentences to run concurrently.
2. The principal ground for challenging this conviction is that the prosecution did not prove its case, that the evidence was contradictory and that the appellant was not identified and the person who defiled the complainant.
3. As a first appellate court, I have reviewed all the evidence and I find as follows. The complainant, PW 1, testified that she was 18 years old and on 22nd February 2015 she had gone to the river where she met the appellant with a panga. He asked her to remove her clothes and held her but she managed to free herself after she had been cut on the right thumb. The injury was confirmed by PW 4, the Clinical Officer who produced the P3 Form filled by his colleague who examined her on 26th February 2013.
4. After the incident, PW 1 reported to the sister PW 2 who testified that she had followed her sister to the river and seen the appellant. She heard PW 1 shouting and saw her running away after freeing herself from the appellant. She also saw the cut finger.
5. PW 1 and PW 2 reported the incident to their father PW 3 who took them to the Sega Police Station. PW 1 and PW 2 told him that it was the appellant who assaulted PW 1 but since he had disappeared from the village, he was arrested 8 months later when identified by PW 3.
6. In his defence, the appellant denied the offence and told the court that on the material day he had gone to work at Matayos to do construction work.
7. I am satisfied that the attempt was proved for the reason that the appellant forced PW 1 to remove her clothes under the threat and infliction of violence. The incident took place at daytime and he was a person known to PW 1 and PW 2. His alibi when considered alongside the credible testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 is clearly false. His guilt is confirmed by the fact that he disappeared from the village until he was arrested months later.
8. I affirm the conviction on the principal count. The sentence on the principal charge is the minimum sentence and it is also affirmed. Since the appellant was convicted on the principal count, the conviction and sentence on the alternative count is quashed.
SIGNED, DATED and DELIVERED at SIAYA this 2nd day of February 2018
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Appellant in Person
Ms Odumba,Prosecution Counsel, instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Court Assistants: Laban O. Odhiambo, Ishmael Orwa