https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6429

Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E025 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 6429 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6429 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Criminal Appeal E025 of 2022 JK Ng'arng'ar, J May 14, 2026 Between Collins Kiplangat Koech Appellant and Republic Respondent (From the conviction and sentence in Sexual Offence Case Number 45 of 2019 by Hon. Kiniale L. in the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Bomet) Judgment 1.The Appellant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars of the charge were that on 31st July 2019 at [Particulars Withheld] Village within Bomet County, he intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the anus of E.K, a child aged 8 years. 2.The Appellant faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars of the charge were that on 31st July 2019 at [Particulars Withheld] Village within Bomet County, he intentionally touched the anus of E.K, a child aged 8 years with his penis. 3.The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge before the trial court, and a full hearing was conducted. The prosecution called four (4) witnesses in support of its case while the Appellant testified and closed his case. At the close of the prosecution case, the trial court ruled that a prima facie case had been established against the Appellant and he was put on his defence. 4.At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years in prison. 5.Being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial court, the Appellant appealed. The Appellant’s Petition of Appeal was headed as mitigation and the grounds relied upon were purely on his sentence. In my view, the Appellant was appealing against his sentence. 6.Sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously. The trial court must be guided by the evidence and sound legal principles. An appellate court would be entitled to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court if it is demonstrated that the sentence imposed is not legal or is so harsh and excessive as to amount to miscarriage of justice, and or that the court acted upon a wrong principle. The above position was enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ogolla s/o Owuor vs. Republic, (1954) EACA 270, where it pronounced itself on this issue as follows: -“The Court does not alter a sentence unless the trial Judge has acted upon wrong principles or overlooked some material factors.” 7.The penal section for the present offence is found in section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act which states that: -A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life. 8.The trial court after considering the Appellant’s mitigation sentenced the Appellant to serve 10 years imprisonment. I have considered the circumstances of the case and the Appellant’s mitigation listed as grounds of Appeal and it is clear to me that the sentence issued by the trial court was just, fair and lenient considering the prescribed sentence by law was life imprisonment. In my view, the sentence was not harsh. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the trial court’s sentence. 9.In the final analysis, the Appeal does not have merit and the same is dismissed. 10.In the end, I uphold the sentence passed by the trial court. JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 14TH MAY, 2026.HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’ARJUDGEJudgement delivered in the presence of:Siele/Susan (Court Assistants).Mr Mwangangi for the StateAppellant:absent