N

Is . '; Ii U..i C) LU.. 01 1 Liu 1 1.

AT ARUSHL

APPELLLUTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRINIITL.L LPPEiL NO. 283 OP 1976 ORIGINAL CRILTIITAL CASE NO. 31 OP 1976

OP THE DISTRICT COURT OF HANDENI DISTRICT AT HLNDENI BEFORE: J. N. B NFUXO, Esq0 9 Senior Magistrate LIADI ALLY ••• • • •• • •• * • • • • • • 0•• JiPPELIdNT (Original Accused) versus THE REpIThLIC: 00 • 00.0000.00.. • ... •. REPOITDTT (Original osecutor) JUDGEi;iENT - ]YIWESIU1,10 9 J. This appeal was admitted by this court in order to review the propriety of the sentence of three ears imprisonment and eight strokes passed on the appellant for the offence of defilement of a girl under twelve years of age contrary to section 136(1) of the Penal Code because the appellant contended in his iaeiiiorandiLc. of appeal that he was a juvenile assertedly aged 15 years. Mr. Kinabo, learned State Attorney who aiDpeared for the Respondent (Repu1ic) argued that there was ample evidence which was believed by the trial court that at the time of the camission of the offenco the appllaiit was 16 years old. This was medical evidence as per PP.3 which was tendered before the trial court as an exhibit0 He further argued in conclusion that at the tiiiC of conviction the appellant must have been well over 16 years old. The record of the trial court reveals that the appellant was convicted and sentenced on 27/7/76 but ho was charged on 13th July 1976 and in the Charge-sheet it is stated that he had committed the offence on 10/2/76. This clearly shows that if he was 16 years old at the time of

commission of offence then he must definitely have been more than that on tho subsequent dato which is of conviction. Therefore he was wl1 over the age of a juvenile. As Hon. Nyalali, J. as he thon was, (Now Chief Justice), stated in his minute the appeal as against conviction has no merit. Consequently this appeal is dismissed in its entirety and the sentence which needs confirmation of this court is hereby duly confirmed. Delivered . .... .. . .