[2021] KEHC 1271 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge of defilement against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's age was established by her immunization card, and medical evidence confirmed penetration. The identification of the appellant was reliable as he was well known to the complainant,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1271 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Timothy Mureithi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E112 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sexual Offences Act, Identification Evidence, Burden of Proof
- 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
Timothy Mureithi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the charge of defilement against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator was reliable and free from error.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge of defilement against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's age was established by her immunization card, and medical evidence confirmed penetration. The identification of the appellant was reliable as he was well known to the complainant, her brother, and the watchman, all of whom identified him with the aid of lighting. The court held that the sentence imposed was lawful and found no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and both conviction and sentence were upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The conviction of the appellant is upheld.
- The sentence of 17 years' imprisonment is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. E112 OF 2021
BETWEEN
TIMOTHY MUREITHI.................................................................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC....................................................................................................RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the conviction and sentence in Criminal Case S.O 28 of 2020 in the
Chief Magistrate’s Court at Maua by Hon. M.Nyigei (SRM) on 18. 03. 2021)
JUDGMENT
The charge
1. TIMOTHY MUREITHI (Appellant) has filed this appeal against sentence and conviction on a charge of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 (the Act). The offence was allegedly committed on 18. 03. 2020 against SKa child aged 13 years.
Prosecution case
2. The prosecution called a total of five (5) witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution case as narrated by the complainant is that she was born on 24. 08. 2006 and was in class 5. She recalled that on 01. 03. 2020, she was sleeping in an abandoned bathroom with Moses and Jesse when Appellant who had a torch found them there at about 10. 00 pm chased away the others and defiled her. That Appellant heard footsteps approaching and he ran away leaving behind his trousers behind. It was her evidence that she knew Appellant physically before the material date and saw his face before he switched off the torch. Her brother JM Mrefu chased them out of the bathroom where they were sleeping and he defiled complainant. He said that Appellant had a torch whose light assisted him to identify him from where he reported the matter to the watchman. Boniface Muthee a watchman at Laare dispensary heard screams at about 2. 00 am and a boy reported that her sister who was in the bathroom had been attacked and undressed. That he ran towards the bathroom and saw a man who was running turned to face him and with the help of electric lighting identified him as Appellant who used to work near the hospital car wash. Complainant was examined by a clinical officer on 02. 03. 2020 which was a day after the incident and was found with a freshly torn hymen, swollen vulva and bruises on labia majora and minora as shown on the P3 form marked PEXH. 6. This case was investigated by IP Wambua who arrested Appellant and caused him to be charged. He tendered complainant’s immunization card which shows she was born on 24. 08. 2006.
Defence case
3. In his sworn evidence, Appellant conceded that he works at a car wash near Laare hospital but denied defiling complainant and that he knew complainant who used to frequent the car wash.
4. 0n 18th March, 2021, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve an imprisonment term of 17 years.
The appeal
5. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal. From the amended grounds and written submissions filed on 30. 04. 2021, Appellant raises grounds that:
1. Prosecution case was not proved
2. Time spent in custody was not considered
Analysis and Determination
6. It is a duty to re-evaluate, re-analyze and re-consider the whole evidence in a fresh and exhaustive way before arriving at its own independent decision. (See Collins Akoyo Okemba & 2 Others vs Republic [2014] eKLR).
7. I have considered the appeal in the light of the evidence on record, the grounds of appeal and submissions by the Appellant the State having filed none
8. In the case Alfayo Gombe Okello v Republic [2010] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that:
In its wisdom, Parliament chose to categorise the gravity of that offence (defilement) on the basis of the age of the victim, and consequently, the age of the victim is a necessary ingredient of the offence which ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That must be so because dire consequences flow from proof of the offence under section 8 (1).
9. That Complainant was born on 24. 08. 2006 and was therefore 14 years when the offence was allegedly committed in 2000 was demonstrated by her immunization card PEXH. 1.
10. Section 2 of the Act defines penetration to entail: -
“partial or complete insertion of a genital organ of a person into the genital organ of another person.”
11. Complainant was examined a day after the incident and was found with a freshly torn hymen, swollen vulva and bruises on labia majora and minora as shown on the P3 form marked PEXH. 6. I find that the trial court rightly found that penetration was proved.
Identification of the assailant
12. Complainant testified that Appellant was well known to him and that he had a torch on the night he defiled her whose light enabled her to identify him. Her brother similarly said he Appellant with the light from Appellant’s torch. Both said that Appellant use to work at a car wash near Laare Hospital. Their evidence as corroborated by the watchman who stated that he saw Appellant turned towards him as he was running from the scene and he identified him with the assistance of electric lighting as the person that used to work at a car wash near the hospital. Although the incident happened at night, Appellant was well known to the three witnesses and as they explained, the probability that the three could have mistaken Appellant with someone else is almost nil.
13. From the foregoing, I find that the Prosecution discharged the legal burden to prove their case against Appellant beyond any reasonable and that Appellant was lawfully convicted.
14. Section 8. under which Appellant was charged stated that:
(1) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement.
(2) 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.
15. From the foregoing, I find and hold the 20 years’ sentence imposed on the Appellant is lawful and there is no judicious cause to interfere with it. Accordingly, the conviction is upheld and sentence confirmed.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER,2021
WAMAE. T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Court Assistant - Kinoti
Accused - Present
For the State - Ms. Mwaniki