Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20110826 TZHC Tanga

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical and witness testimony, proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The age of the victim and appellant were sufficiently established. The trial magistrate assigned reasons in the judgment. The sentence imposed was lawful. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of 30 years imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane, and compensation of TZS 500,000 to the victim upheld

02

Material facts

Parties

Appellant (Name not specified)

Appellant

Republic

Respondent Counsel: Miss Mdegella, Learned State Attorney

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment Term: 30
  • Corporal Punishment (strokes): 12
  • Compensation to Victim: TZS 500,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, that it was not proved he impregnated the victim, that the trial magistrate failed to assign reasons in the judgment, that penetration and age were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the sentence was unlawful as his age was not properly determined.
Respondent
The respondent argued that the offence was rape, not impregnation, that the victim identified the appellant, that penetration was proved by medical evidence, that the victim's age was stated and confirmed, that the appellant's age was investigated and found to be over 18, and that the trial magistrate assigned reasons in the judgment.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General criminal law principle

    The prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. 02

    Penal Code [Cap.16 R.E. 2002]

    Section 130(2)(e) and 131(1) of the Penal Code [Cap.16 R.E. 2002] define and prescribe punishment for rape.

  3. 03

    Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E. 2002]

    Section 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E. 2002] requires reasons to be assigned in judgments.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical and witness testimony, proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The age of the victim and appellant were sufficiently established. The trial magistrate assigned reasons in the judgment. The sentence imposed was lawful. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Conviction and sentence of 30 years imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane, and compensation of TZS 500,000 to the victim upheld

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 26 August 2011

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 26 August 2011

20110826 TZHC Tanga

.. ;:../·}:. .:·. ~ ·. y ·.· :•\:•.. ~-(...,.:.:·. _:'. . ·. ' .. ~.., -,. , f}f ·- · . ·}\ Y* ·.. ·. __ ..... <~};'.;~' :,t,. ;·,~ ..:·•-~-;-;. -:.~~:._.~~ •{:,"·. . ::t ·~ /... ·.;~ . ";'; ·- ;- , .. ,, ' '> _•_t;; " ' ,,' ': ' ... , '.', J, :-: ~, "r.N· TH~ ·:.~JG.f.f· CO UR-"(;.iQF TANZ:ANJ:A - •. !1.):_r •. l•_.. >.::.:_.;.:';_:_;_;?:,_.'.-· .-_ -.·.·.':···:;··::'.··.:.:_'..':_-·.'.i_:'._··.;.r.;f.._i.•_·.:.'..:_•.:.:_i_~_i-:-t.•_~.;_;_:_:_:_·_:·•.~.·.:.:.~..._:·)_ :••,~,•?>~•. 1. •~:--•~ i.t:::.-~•~~-=t: : •. •-~ •~•••<f . .. .. ·., ··., .. ::: :· . :;... t ·.. ~ . . . . .. -. , ... , .. i\/::-~''.·_: . ~- · ~t_ ·t .•·. ·:.:· ·· · .A1 TAN GA ·:··. ·•.,. ·· · · :->>>·:·. · . :. .-_·. ~•--:~.:::·:::.:·••;.•.:~-.·<:•:;:i}~;:.\:·.'.·.. '·: . _.:-"/ s•~Tr;,:T NA._~J?.f.-,,.}i.1:--N•O.:L-80r.,;.i:,!1..~ , ·1 :,·•:..,?:'w.~ ~-\" . - . : ~';..,,./... · ; •. :·.- ,··.·\::.· .•. , •.,. \....KJ..1-, .. ...,:•.\:::·:• ·:./{ .·. ··.-:·.=:.,-:,.·,;>..-t•::.·:· -~:~_ ·.=·:·.~~-' __--:: -· . •·:· J.f}~·:•/'· _ . ·,. ·: ~ . .-.,~--- .--~~-~ ·••/ .::~~l~~:-:.=~1-~·- -~--;._> ···u'r•- .. ~-'r'tJ. ';r---•r,;·rr C ' ''f.}P:r, 'A(\''~1-{ - ;... _ _ K'[••7 ·;_ ·:.-· ~:- C,i-i L ,yn .c;.7/20rl•--._J·· ._-\)·[-:,.:/_~:,:~·;.:=;::.}:::~-.~ ··,~··.·'•. ·.· ... f. • ; .. .• • -: ~ ., ··:· oc ••• :, ' • • • •• •• ••• • • ••• :•>\;:,;:· ·.... . . . ' ·....:·.: e~;<!.

~\),~·t~:;;>i~F··J;;.if-/_;:.-;:::: · .:.- . . ~:,~: · .-: ..-. ·· ;_: .,:,;,.,. .: • ~:· ..:-.•• r'.3{-:>ffQJ'JLjd~r-er.•···26.'7{·?,j201'!L U (: . '},' l~:.IJ -• i,. - ; -!l .. ·.- . . i_"· .. • e'..~. . ,:·..-•~•.',•.' ../'.:{.-;:. ·. .•'i.\•:-=::.- •::.~:-.• . y.:•......'<:/, ~ "_!..~:;. •. ·.';:·,:.:·.·.·_:·~-;_·•.i:,;,.....•·.·.:,;:.·:.::;:·~'.:.L:.:·.<-:· ••• • • • ~ •;. : • • • • ;: ,l•'t'.:, • ;: •... •• • •• • • ·, ,·.··:.::;..,:. . . •, .· .. ' . ' . ·: ..... :f: "'.' ., .. .. ... ' .·:·.'.·.~·~~.:. :,~.-.-.~ ··/•" .... •. _ ,. . . ~:~;;,:._·,·-i,...: . J-UU-\.::fVt_t;J~'.f. :•::)·.it·;~·.; :. ·· .··-:;• ''!." ·:.., ·.·. 0-"'.f :• ... ' . .: . ;.·:~- ·: . . . : t,iJd ·an·· convicted 6t Rape •• .:::;•:.: ,,.;,;,....•:w • • • •• • ,. :, • • •• •, • 't·on·t~:~r/to section 13.0(~)(e)'·and 131(1) of the. penaL.code .[cap:.16 R..E. 2002]. . --~~:-:t. . ·. . '. . ·. : . ' '· :·. .: . . :; . . . . The tmi1 Magi·str~te, atffan.Ja Resideht Magi5tr?t~ Cou'rt ordered the appeliant to . . \ > 1-· /f.-. .:-: .·.· "; . ,;{ \. : \ \J ;> ': . . s~rve a,·.sente0Fe ?ft30·y~~rs .ir_jz:il,\.!welye st~~kes· bf the'•cane as a.corporal :.:·~: .· .·.· .~t::= ·~.:: . -~~- . . ~·.. •I. L'. 'f :· .. ,.. . . . __.punishroent aqo}pay the victim Ts~.s500,000/.= as nor.ninal compensation, It w·as .... <. . ·.:··: .!: .., · .. '.. ·~.. /-~.::;::· ·.;.-;_:-:: ' . ~--.·.-.• ·:, .. ·... . ·: . aJ_leged

that soh1etime·s in April, 2"009 ·(ih t.he:./eventng at Horohoro village within . . ; · .. > .....-> . .'·:"<{: :_ .. ,·,. :. .. . . . _·:??t . !Vlkinga District ih Tang~ region/jhe ~P.tfella(tt,.: did' 'Unlawful . have . carnal ·. . ... . -:., ; ..·.:. . . . . . •;'r. • . .·.kno\f\,-ledge of orie Chizi r d/o Nyamavyi, a Q·irf·o( 17 yea1·s old. Following the . ~.:.. . _.-;,. )', .! ,~.1., . '7 _convi~tio.rti~10\senti~ce p+us orders;. the appellant decided to appeal against .: . : ·. t t ' them in this to'~rt basi·cally° ·on the. . following grounds of :ippeal: . First that, the '\ • • I,. . : ~ f .· .: . !~ . - case was not proved _.beyon·d rea590abl;e doubt. Second, that it was not proved that the appellant ·i1 the one· .Y)lhO: pre·gnated t~e victim. Third, that the trial Magistrate convicted the appellant.:y,;ithout assigning·.- reasons 1h hi.s:judgme:nt =·:=~fN9h is conlt'a~,/t9, the reA.wir('!ll('i' .11 ol '1('.(:1j{i_i1 ) 1:/( 1). ot· t~~ ,Cri~1i~al Pr9c~dur£:i.~,,:/'.. •. ·< .;Ac:i/(Cclp.20 R.E. 2002]'. Fourll1, ll1.i\ cjlCI.ldi.t1\1ur1 was not·. proved 'beyond' :·.' . : ··.t _. . . ~ :::, .· . ' ' { \. . . . ~ . " . . . , . . ' .. rea$on,abledoubt. Fift~,=;th1i:,Jhc a~(:; oI'ithc. vie\ irn was :n:oi -~scer~~\ned ·before . <~;._ -· ~;.:·· .<· -~~:- ~A~?~.- . . . . ._.... . . _. . . :- -- • . ~ .. ~-t • • ·. .._ • .-. •• • . ·._. ·: . . c:J::·'..: ;r:·~)--;~:c~ -x·h:~·: .~

cp-~~~; :?-· :-; _·\ 2 r1_0- :: 1.>, :h, -~hci.t' · th(·: n·120 i.st-ra't(~(~ ~-f."'f.e."d: ·tri !2V/ f0, ·.;·/~-~ ~ ·- ~- _(:, - -~·. . - ·.~ -.-· :-,'·:-> .· . ,· .·. -:..:~·~.--"· ·,_"(· ._....... - .. , . (: '3 0 . '~ : .., _. I ~ C . ~ ~ 1m~•c,s1Gg_3 s~~1te,- Ce_ol· 1 y~a!s 1n JC!\ contr~1r><.~r:.R~LiG:-'. ~~~~-\~]:r) tr.e Pen2i 1 •/.•~ -'. •;- ~tc ~ ?-"' •·.} C>C 71 0 C ! hd .,, ""CP? nl ,It w,as.estab\'is'hed on record th_at-PW<L :-_.OllZl'Nyah'TEy./i vJas .. a,standarc ~\as eiDt,; ;:~~,::::o.:/,~! ,; •.·.· < LJ j • . ... .• . :·:,•: .' -~-: : r . . ~ ;'\,: VI pupi_l :or 11.6:fapi Pi-iiT.1arj SchooJ. Lfl 0.H,cf~1liOt::1 2cc:, '."::\t: '::::::::.. :.''. ;_.;·"'''.: 1i11(, ~a·rket place i·,,~-~d :she. was. apprnac~~'.j~: ~y • . .. .· \ ·, \hk:.\88pe;i;•;~( ~. . . :tJ:::::: Have .·ie;uai . . . . . . . ,·· : . . ::: .,··~·: . . .. -- ~•: a;)i=·-::; ;u ;--.~ ;:~~si$~~qf/: f~C. '.,tee(:; ~\ .._ her tirelessly. Finally s~e accepted the appellant PW. L started ~~-~if£;1i~iu&U . ·, . . to have sexual affairs with the appellant in a bus~i situ~ted at ·Horohmovillage. "f . . . In April, 2009 the girl discovered that she was pregnated by the appellant She revealed the incident to her .mother - PW.2 Saiima Nyamani. PW.2 also reported the ini:::i.dent to PW.4 Mashaka Mohamed, the head teacher of Perani 0 Primary Sch b.0L ,Ag:cn/2, the matter' was reported to the village Executive

officer who finally ·reported the. same af:Makorora Police Station. The same incident was narrated .in .the course of _trial by PW.3 F.935 PC Heri who investigated that case PW'.3 testified further that the appellant's parent5 offered a dowry for purpose of allowing the appellant to marry the victim, but such offer~was rejected. PW.5 - Abas Msumari, a clinical officer in charge of Duga Maforoni Dispensary examined PVv.l and discovered that PW.2 had a pregnancy of 36 2 · ·:~--·~,·f}tff····· . •· if·••·. ·:}:tt_:;,,._,.•.Ii;·_.,:·;:~ }1::•.ii : : :;:]]~it1f;:i;r· ·: _;· •· •·:_ <)t:_. 1 ; ·, :··.·.v:iieks:"· :ehis:· vi: i-~--~;~~ieci>,n .the: :P.F.. f' t·~;;:Jer:~d.'anth3arn'!£i~.d in :cot.ir(·as. P.E-::1~ )Di: ···>:·H:_·.:-:. ::\ ·. . '_.· /, . . ._;"r-~·-- ·>: : ·- -<. :_._ -/.:--:-:< ~r:;.-_;-<·. ·-.::--1'>...;.· ->·>:> . .';·._. .;· •: :· .- -~~: _-.. ., . :_·:. _._ ·- · . . - · /··:: < · , .'·- i/)_::_;·-:·_~-~--!:(}}( ' .- ·;_.- .· - ·. '. :, .. : l1is· defe.nd~'_:·durkig··-tcia~/tfle· apoe"llarift!en(e<d :1:0 have .-ctom.mitted the al_legeff·,·.. ··:·. \)!\'"· . . . . ., .-:: - _, . _:,. _/\·_ . _.·,;:_.,<.(_::· ._. ··\t.-f_.:- .. --':' . . >" : );:'~. ;:_:•:•·;.- ,.5-.':: ....:;:tr;... _,.· · . ·.'.·· .; t._.,:•_~:.:::_Jrf,.. · .. ,: :;·, . .-_i_\.:··: :bff~n-(e\.;t~_~;-.i-ri~i):_~~-g}~\~a~e· :at -T~;~si:9:' i\½~(9,e_nt Ma~~·str.~}e~~j:o_urt ~o\J0:d_,,fii~/.'_: .·:: ·_:

·_::-- ... ... . ·... · ·.. /,, ··:·: :_ . •-;,. . _.:.:.-: ..:·:·:_ .. ') ·- . . . ~·,:: ·:·-:~~. .. .. . .. -.:; : .. . ~ .. . . . ..• .,. . . ?.,t ,:_tht{ ':hearfng: /Jf. this . app'e•ijt~1·:fhe-. ·'appellant ·appea'red· :.. 1n·: -.~rs.qtr:ci·->.: ·:):.,_.·.>~~t . ,. '\ /:··.:t-~--'.'.;::j·_:·_.<<·}\/ .: :· ·,:.: . :··-:\'.\:- .·:.:.-_·::_· .. : .:'._.: :... :"· .... ,_':·' ..,,::::::::·,::,:_--::/:<}\t:':': . _,~"- . :'. . unre(.)te~entE;tr_··,9-r.1.d> H?t!~\,BE;1;:n.;10!1c; \V~}~ ,..tl¢p1 e;::,1.::(1-1.cC. ;:, y' '. +~{st . l'!i 'i:~j;~::-i:<.:. ~.:,...,:,, ..--,:-..,~-- .. ·t~;i ·•: : : 1iftll~;.'.t;-:~~~~::t,~: };(·I~!~~:q~r,c,;:j;'.;~,::,~c2I~~. ;"at e :A th . ;:a·bpeal··\'s.·· ag~\-A~f/06ti1_. : . ~ -- . . ' . ~onyicdori ~.~nd . .·: ·... ~- .·. ··:· ..\· ,.·.•., ·. ':s~-(lteh-'ce'. He added-. tha't It IS not .true l.i !ell ... ·_ . ~ . . . . .... ·•:· . .-h~_--. impregtiat~d·· the. ~~m~l~in~'ht .. The appellant' furth~r s·tated that the complainant n'qniedi' him .beciuse $he was. asked by. he_f UQCle to· do so. At last, .• ' .• I • • ~ , •~' ' ' the appellant.a~opted all th~ grounqs of· app<:;alas presented. ,.. ·.· .· ' .. · ' . _,, .., _- . In reply, , .Mis.i Mciegela ;' oppos~d this appea_'I· -:a~d su-pmitted that the ' . _" - . . . .. . ... .,: ~-: :: .. . ·.,~. . ~-: . . j:ust· an afte~ho~ght b~~aJie: he v¾~s·_·iqer-1:tified_ fr/ the 'appellant's c°i'ai_m~ are ..

:'-... . . ·,... . ;J--:.. : _......·.· .:. : ~·-._~:~: ·/·1, ·. ·. . 1 . victim .in ·court. She dismissed the. grounds ··6t, _appeal ·-saying that···in· cross - 0 examination during 'trial, the victim responded that' she knew the ·appellant well as they met many times. ..;·' ··•: ,-.' ... Miss Mdengella su~ni!tted in resp.ect of the first g·rou~d: ·that the complaint . t' • .., . . is baseless a·s the offence against the :appellant is rape and not ·impregnating the · school girl. . ,: . . . ._··.· ', . ·:,-:···. ,, _,. '• .. :,\)/'.?\ :. . . . .... _.__,._·._ ·:;~•.: ·:i"/,.'····... ~-;· . ' .-_ ... :-· As to the ground that ·p~'netrati~n was .-.not· _proveqi./·M1ss ;Mdeg~!lo -· - .,;:., . ,, •'. .·-·· ,.,. . •I.·•:.• . submitted that this is not true b~cau:;e·: r .P_w·s}th~: clinical officer of ~;~g~- ~.-. •-'.~ Dispensary, stated oh· page 15 of the proceedings that he examined the victim and not~d tl"V~t the vidi_m was no longer virgin and her pregnancy was 36 weeks . -_ ..?~~- .. -.: ~ .:_: .:.- . . ·; :-; . old.· She. c;.onclu.ded ...,._·. he,. . ar_gument ~- . saying that the evidence of PW.5 shows that , penetration was· pr-oved, ·,:, _-:._:-: · .- .... , Respondin0 to· the ground that the age of the victim was not ascertained befor(;: the conviction of the appellant, Miss Mdegella; contended th·at the prosecution stated in the charge sheet that the victim was 17 years

old and the victim. confirmed during trial to be 17 years old. The learned State Attorney 4 I .....· . . . . ' .. .• . . . ·. . . ~ ·::.. . ;.:.. ·.. -~ .. ;. : . . }:·~-.-· _:;_-:: ~ ' .. ----~·..,;? .· -----·< :·-·. ... ,:,i.1>:~:. ·_- . :--·:_.-·:.·_\";/:~---:~_::._:::_>\:;,_:rt~-:: .... · ·-. -...}. . ♦ ·;~: ';... . : :._. . • , • • \,• • .- • •• .' •• • •• ., •• .. • • • • • ·• ' . : , • •·;•,' .:· ·./.:.".',:~--~•:-~.;-- . ·, ._:; ·.. ·. ' . . . : . . . ,.:-., ::· .' •-.-·;-~· ·... . ' . . ·, . . . . . .· ~ : . . . . . ··: . ·... , ._ .· ·. . ,': .. :--:. : . ;·aodetr·\ha,t·the .appel_!ant.":was ·:g.ivc'/-1 d)~Jil( \.:. H\·)'_:1·1.:,,,,, ·. cxa.mine the :victim bµt he ·. ·-.1.: -:-.:-.. ' .. ·:·,_;·.. -._:•:·,--:,:, -.';.'::,•: - ~ :-.''. .. :-:.::_,\•,{?,; •... ,· : •.... ·: ·, .:•:\-:_.:-: .•··.:.:_·.':> .. ,.,:\:-::;.'-'·, a·,; . <. .· ... · did\· not opposfJ;is:r.: ·age.·· The ·1e~r·nt.i~t -~)t;iV(~{A11 <irncy·. ·cl"d.ded· 1\;!flher· that th~ .·,._: ;·. . . ..0:,-\/. - .. :, ,:· -~ .... ·:· ·.·· .. _:_. ·. ,·.- of 30 yeaf'.:fcbntr(j;ry.J:'o :-$e.tti'o:n · 13ft;~f..o;f.fne. 15c~hz.\l ·ctYde., f(::cp:1:6 · R_.. E., .2002,h~f:. :. .. .. .·... ,.:rr:e,:· ~rrj11~~f(' \~,o_vv.1)::: '_~:·};:'.:i!f ;"c: :•i-~ ,;1:rt0;r:ts.'.~];~~~f \,.;:j'.f•. .'< · :;?tba_t· tll¢/.:ii.i5pefr~:fr.it ·:.w~$>":20·-':ye~_rs·· old: ·_.Sl-ie;_::~a.d{Jt:c.:. ;tq9(:_::q{_ \h¢ :·\~ind- ---.of:.

th~_-.···-: 1\ ·•.·'::i~l:J;I:ifj }~iili;::;:::eo::I~~es:i:~i:i'lf . .':;~:;~fi~d· th~t~~·e: ap~e1i~rJt~a~ -2~ y~~;:;,~:'~ijlin ~:: :;~~te:f: :~:~:t: : . state 200~. However, the !earned . .. . . ,' ' .:. -~-;.· .;,: ..•.. , . . ' ,:·: .. , .. , . \::t:::: . ·attorney concl1,Jded th_at't~e dis.pt_.1te' .. !:1bout age is an a_fteqhought because the ~'- ~ . ( . , -. ;, .-· ·.: .--- .~ __ ~;. ,• _, ,· accused could bri~g any -~vid~r1c~_-._~o d,_ispiGlve :the age.-:if a.t ~ii· there was any I• di.spute. . , ., -., . , _\:. ► ••• r· '.;. I.,. •• ••~ :· _; '. ·.._:. :,_ }·• •• , .•, . ' . . .. , .. ,. :·_ :··>· . .:_:,. ·- :-.: . _· . r.. . . . .. -·~-,:-. . . . In rejoinder, the appellant insisted that-tie V}$S bdm:.-on--5.6 ..1-"9·94:and 'he is : . now 18 ye~ar~. old. He,added that he:h:~d,.'ari .id~ati:~·ic~t_iOD·. ~ar~t6:\~:::~~ h;~ age . . . . . . . ' bui;.. it was burnt i~ "a;ho~se.: H~ reitera_t~d that the gifl. was taugh:t . ·.·.,:. \,yhat to· state. . ' in evidem:e. I .have ~ar:~fully . . read an ''consi6e·~ed the . evidence-on .r"eco~d . . together Vvith the grounds ·of appeal ai1d the :subm_i_ssions· advanced by the partie_s. I am of the o· . , !! ,·' considered vieyv that th.e only question to determine_ i_n this appeal· is ·whether or . . . ·=· . . .... not this appeal has merit.. In the ·9utset 1 I shb~lc:fs·a/.th 9 this appeii. is devoid of • . . i . • ' . ♦ 5 'I ,.

·;/,:~·-:.~:-£ ~.... ' ,... .. :·-·.··: ·: -;-~\~ :'__:·.. ...... :.,:;: :, it~it~\:~ ~ •, ;:~~. rnerit for reasons .1. •affi •901fi9'.. lu. ,J>V< ·. , Ii· , ,.';''' •. '";:1<'\ •:'\ ;' •~re. • _,- 5' '.·i=ourt to support the ·prosecution 'yl;r'.;1oi"1. t,( '( f )'c1r'I Hw.)r:.1at *.1agist'rate wa.s: in 'if/::.'·)\t<: ,; . .· . . . .·. ·.' ' .. .- '; . >< .... ,•, :., '. <··,' ' . \_.::.':;)~-- . : ,better. position to asse~ss: the credibility";r111~!-:d< •1.111> II 1our of th~· witries·ses [Pw-:J/.\?J :, • . . "< . • . . '.. .. .--- .~ ~ -i .• : ~- -· ... PVv'.2:, :'.pw~3\'· Pw. 4 .and PW' s'] be:f-oi-'l:~ ·:4~:(,_ (()I ;v,c:t t~(j tile, ·appeJ!aht, ·.Tr.1ird, thk:,-:/·: : ·.. ; t..,.:,;_,n,_-:·1.:·.·_:_._: :.._ i\.l_~,~-·--.~_:.:.i_·_i-.:. .;\.:.:_~~f;:.:i:_:,:.·--. · ·. · · ...,· -· •:. '.:,·:-.: : -·,.·, · ·: i_;.·:.:'_. . -·- , · -- -. _--- ·:··,~:·'.!_-/ <=;.---~·,-':z• '.\·:at· '..,::..:·.:::·.,<.!.~'~.t.\i/·'. ·;·~,.-~.~:.stf?!)\t:rJ1?~:?r,_~}tCtim ·. ·._:. .· _:; ·.;t:;f.~. . . .. . . . ~ \. .. ·.· :~· . ~. :~:~- ·:· .. ·.. ·./>~-'.;.:. ,_. ~<'· : -~:-,, ·:·: ' :.,. ,'! ,-; I :~.;.?:,;.;,...,,,,.~~ .. T;:,k i no. C·cons·tdt:-rali~l i~.U,{', fr/ 1:..:, .• €"··/t(.l!:f(.'.~ ... r·Y-1:.-,-_· .- c, '-(- ~ ·t••;-:..·0 ·.:. •.·(·'·' -.".~~.~.- ·· .. :-.-·--.·. ·.. : - <\>·~r·-.:.:~.·.::. ·. . ,\•).i~/\;·;.~'.~<·}.:~:t•Y/::'.,.~-/:?'··~-:~ .. :. . . cr):1s-:d.ered op!01c{r1

-t.nat t~e c:-:e.i n:'aGf,$tt.Cte· r;~~rUv. . <:1\j~f.)d)the·;,<2i~·'"o~na.rt"ourltv of· y\, . . i.i-,:.:~.:.j·.;._f.:,~e · f herefo;e ~ .. . .. the qrou~Jtialtk& ca:~ . . : .. . - : ~~~(· :_~- ·.. . · s~~' ~drrri0~{b~yonr ·-... - -:.;. ·., : /::./i.~fona_·b,:l.~.~_-.:d,.:·o.·~.:.:~.·-·:,::' . b:·:.:.I_:. :._:.i.•_1.a_...c.{.·s_·i. me.~_.rit .· :. . _:,:, }.s)i);. ·. • . • ·-. . --: ; "· .. ·~i,,••'~'.<,..;_:· (: In· :r-esp:ed--. or a. comolaint that the trial Magistr\,te did. .nc;,f~ssign.:.r~.asoris ·- . ~ • ••• ~~Qistr~'.:~-Hna'rtii~ . t~,r~ • I • • \ : '.~.• :;, l• •: • ,' • I • ·,: . • .- •• • • •,- • : • , • ll• . ._ • • • • - ·~· :-.:~ :-:2~:::::~:r:'-<·1'1ji5~g:·ee 'N 1ti,:t.tic.0prk::c;:~. ;:-:p :-:-:~! . ,..... . .. ·_ ·.·. ·. ·>: :_\:'<_~J";,~./···~·--:·. i' ev.idence ·on . .re.c:qrd at.id assigned \e.asons for ·his . ... . findings,. . . .· ·~iri;~l.l~c -. . ·-".f"'. ·the· .-l~.i~I . . ,, _,. ·· .·.•- ·-. ~ ; ' . . •,. magistrate stated that:- "The court, at th!$ : .... jt.J.ncture, is satisfied that the evidence as against the'·· ·· .. :'· ·\; .. · accused person . J ,s overvvhetr; Jing. /-le fs hereby found guilty as. charged. "- . • . : .. •.· It•·foflow;·th~refore,.th.at:.the provisions of section 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure .Act.-[Cap.20 KE. .2002) were adhered to by the trial magistrate when ·... . he was composing the judgment. The argument that

penetration was not proved, is baseless because ~W.5 the Clinical officer, examined ti,~ victim and discovered that she was pregnant. Her virginity was removed in the course of having sexual intercourse. The .same 6 r .,~;iitj!(tH{;i; .· ·-;;}:1f.::i:DE-· :,-'.· .·.··. .. ·• .• >:·::·;: .:.·"fr:;f:::,.: ·: :.· •.,. :.: .,:;:t::.. :· :--:· . . ·:~}:/~;t;~a·!ed--- by th.~:~-~\iflP8.0'~~ :,qf:,,;PW ..1 _.,Jf/f,l:, l l-11' I 'I : ._· ~·V\:,H.n, h. i;vs?:.-teridered. ·a11c.1 .. , . ._. . . . ".....·}}??\f{-~:.· .. ' : :,. ,·-:.-t•' ·_: _ _{:<:_.-;·, ·\-?:>:· :- . _·:_._ :·. •, . ' . ::" .:::::-..-.. :_.; . .. . . . --·.-.--::::·:-: . . . , :., ·-.: '"adniitted--·as.PE.-1..· - -, · .. _. · .-·. c-_:\- . -':'. :,-:· . _:.:.: ,-:_;_- :. . ._-_:·::·~,:·\./:·:':·r--:: ,_ · -_~:r·.:::_:\:: . :_.-.:.-__... ·;·:-.,z -: _,:_:-_ :~:--r.-;;c_ . . -- - . .-_·_.::' ' .·. _.·_-·-::. ··: . <.---The 9ge·.·:-9f/ii~tim:.Vvc;is' confirflil~(j.';1~;'t/i.h?h ly '.;111-5m1tt.ed·.;by Mi$s Mdegella. . ,·<·.· <· ._,-. ':. .<:_:::. .·.';,_ .... _: . _.. -:;· .::.-:_:'_.-.·\·)'-:~:'.:,.,:~.--'::'-·.::.\:'~--- .. '/://,:·_ ··\;>/,_·, ,. _· :;,. :-: :_ .. , ·, >·... ·._.:7i\·1e- ric::,re..::-.·i:·i~.2.:l,V/~nt;-;,:1s:~f.hat ··shefi½!tb··; .i·/._y/:,11 '., vi1e:n ·. the::md_de0t::;_.Of ·. r:ape .'. . ·-;,::...::'--·· ,• :·/_:._.: , .._.. . . t4 . ... . ··, . . •;,: .~.. .:_

;; ---·At.ang}(~·~g.-fs'.{ry.):::'t.wniep_~:frte'p at p: 15J-}hat_::-1nvE;stiga·tio'(i:iof;:the.· ag:e of,victihF··•i:~,-; : ,; ·_· ·. , . . ,• ~ ·.·• ·. .... -~-. . . \,; . . ~ . - . . ·• ::,. . ·:.)':· I::\.. :.· . :~_·: •. .1·· ........ cf the ·s_e_ntenre_imposed by_ the .· .. ::. ;:., trial court. . The_ re_~orif'-s,hbw_~ . . .. . th~t .the . appellant'~ . . age was investig~ted . and the .,. .. ·:trial court ,was satisfied· that the appellant w,as · ~· .. -., over 18. years at the time .• . ,:....,. ~ : . . he . :. . .·· .*,~/. : ', . .:_. . . .:::\:~(:-.__ . ,• . committed the alleged·offerice~: Th~ appellant'§ compf·aiht that he was below 18 f , . ·,: , . • y'ears was dismissed by° ti1e '._ tria•( ~ourt and I have n_o::_good ,.reason to ch~ilenge ' .. . .. '. . .. : ·.. . .. , ... that finding': I am• ther_efore_. satisfied that tl1e-:·.sentence of. :thfrty P.Ol years ,mpri~onm·~-~~ wa$ properly p'assed 6'V the trial 'tdurt/ -: _· .:·. -:.•·:. For the foregoing reasons, ·rfind--the appeal to !act i-nerit'_a.nd the same is dismissed in i_ts entirety., ·. .-· .:)Jf··· .·..: R:-ii.. TEEMBA, J. _26/8/2011 :. ··:.· . '7 ··..• .. --- :~---- .. . . . ~-:----:---» -· . '!' .. ' .. ........ ·• ½Oµ.tt, .•.. ·+;~· ~ l,.•. udg~e et.·. ,t-de;we, :o .• ,,·i-', ;,: / 'i ;, , ··.••.· ,;,}.:; .··~: .• ·•• ••.· :: • . :'" ,:;_,::··~:.:::,•:.-•· .• :}~i[[jp0~{;,i}, i:1,;:, ·~·.•, ,.. •.:••:•· ;: .. _.-••~~·::/ ~••.• 'i'-tt~ngGl:e:, ·leai·ned State /\tt6rhey.·-r02pi-"< :fi°t.\'.r r ih, ,:"-'.i:)j)t,dj.).i.~::- • • > • ... • 0 _'.;{ • ••• ;; • • • •• • : , · ·;··· . .. :::1 .--:, : ::.·. ~-°' '.\·;>;\.,---1 },:"·•,~·./ ::·\:, ._ ... ·t;-., ·,.: -. -~fi~t- .'.: .-. _.,. . :,· •· ...• ~-: . -:'- :._... ·-~..:., . ·.... ..-:-. ·;..... . :·:~-~ .. .;--. -~.:-. .··.- 8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code [Cap.16 R.E. 2002]

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E. 2002]

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.