[2010] KEHC 1952 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty was properly and lawfully taken, as the charge and facts were read to the appellant in a language he understood and he admitted them. The evidence, including the P.3 form and the appellant's own admission, established the offence of incest by male beyond reasonable doubt. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: P C A; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 105 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Incest by Male, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Principles, Sexual Offences Against Children
- 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
P C A
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty was properly taken and unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the conviction for incest by male was sound based on the facts and plea.
- 3 Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate and lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty was properly and lawfully taken, as the charge and facts were read to the appellant in a language he understood and he admitted them. The evidence, including the P.3 form and the appellant's own admission, established the offence of incest by male beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's claims of confusion, fabrication, and marital discord were unsupported by the record and not raised at the appropriate stage. The sentence of life imprisonment was mandatory and appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant shall continue to serve the sentence of life imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
54 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Criminal Appeal 105 of 2009
P C A……….....…………………………APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
REPUBLIC……………………………………RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the decision of Alego Esq. Senior Resident Magistrate
delivered on 6th July 2009 at Eldoret on conviction and sentence
in Eldoret CMCC NO. 5058/2009)
JUDGMENT
I.Introduction
1. P C A appeared before the Senior resident Magistrate on 6th July 2009 charged with the following offence:-
Incest by male contrary to Section 20(1) Sexual offences Act No. 3/2006
Particulars of Offence
“On diverse dates between
December 2007 to June 2009Lugari District within Western Province unlawfully and intentionally did an act --- to M.C. --- a girl who is to [his] knowledge [his] daughter”
2. The plea was taken on the same day, and a plea of guilty was entered.The facts of the case was duly read and accordingly to law, a P.3 form was produced to reveal that the minor/victim and daughter was 8 months pregnant.
3. In mitigation P C A, interalia,stated “it is the devil’s work that made me defile my child”
4. The trial Magistrate imposed a sentence of “Life Imprisonment”.
This was on the grounds that a deterrencesentence was appropriate.
II.Appeal
5. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and
sentence P CA (herein referred as the Apppeallant) appealedto this High Court of Kenya at Eldoret on 10th July 2009. His Appeal was admitted to hearing on 23rd November 2009 (Mwilu J).
6. In his Petition of Appeal the Appeallant stated
that:
(i)He pleaded guilty because he was confused.
(ii)He was not aware of the repercussions of pleading to the charge
(iii)The matters before Court was a fabrication but he now prays for a retrial.
(iv)He had a disagreement with his wife.
7. In reply to this Petition, the State was able to show that the plea was correctly taken.Therewas no error or defects on the face of the record.Thatthe admission in mitigation of the words “the devil made (me) defile my child” is sufficientto show the guiltiness and admission to the offence.
III.Opinion
8. The procedure of taking plea herein was according to law.The Charge was read to the Appeallant in a language he understands. He admitted the same.The facts were re-read to him and he again admitted the facts before Court as being correct; namely from December 2007 he had been sexually assaulting the minor.
9. The P.3 from revealed that the minor, a daughter to the Appeallant conceived in August 2008. She was eight months pregnant.The teachers at school on investigating who got her pregnant were informed it was her father and Appeallant in this case.
10. I do not see therefore a likelihoodof fabricated
evidence by the prosecution.I would reject this point of argumentin the petition.
11. Further the Appeallant argued that the cause of
his being in Court is the fact that his wife and he quarreled.Thiswas not part of the petition of Appeal which the Appeallant is bound to.This was never raised before the trial magistrates in mitigation and or during the plea.The facts of the case clearly stated that his wife was notified of theincident that tooka considerable time.She reported to the police.
11. The minor had been informed by the Appeallant
not to tell of the incident.She conceivedthrough normalconception according to the doctors.
12. Where a child in this case, a 13 years old girl
is impregnated by her father, she will be traumatized all her life.She mayhave to bear a child formed out of incest.She was taken advantage of in a situation that she may not have known whatwas being done to her was wrong.
13. I do note in the aspect of conviction that this
Was sound and I would not interfere with it.As to the issue of sentence, the Trial Magistrate gave the same on grounds of deterrence.I would not interfere withthis. I accordinglyuphold the sentence as given.
14. This appeal is dismissed and the Appeallantto continue with his sentence.
15. There will be 14 daysright of appeal
DATED THIS5TH DAY OF JULY 2010 AT ELDORET
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE.
Advocate
(i)Mr. A.O. Oluochinstructedfrom the office of the Attorney Generalfor the State/Respondent.
- Present
(ii)Paul Chimwami, Appeallant in person -Present
(iii)Advocate – nil