[1947] EACA 14
The Court found that the circumstances of the rape were particularly aggravated, involving deliberate deception and concerted action by both accused to lure and assault the victim. The sentences imposed, though severe, were not so excessive as to justify appellate interference, especially given the statutory gravity...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1947] EACA 14
- Parties
- Appellant: Lachman Singh s/o Jowala Singh; Appellant: Sowran Singh s/o Buja Ram; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1946
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence and Conviction
- Outcome
- appeals dismissed
- Judges
- Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Thacker J
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Aggravating Circumstances
- 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
Lachman Singh s/o Jowala Singh
Appellant
Sowran Singh s/o Buja Ram
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence and Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed for rape were so excessive as to warrant appellate interference.
- 2 Whether the convictions for rape were supported by the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the circumstances of the rape were particularly aggravated, involving deliberate deception and concerted action by both accused to lure and assault the victim. The sentences imposed, though severe, were not so excessive as to justify appellate interference, especially given the statutory gravity of the offence. The convictions were not challenged on appeal and, upon review of the record, were found to be amply supported by the evidence. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeals dismissed
Orders
- Appeals against sentence and conviction are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
## Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR G. GRAHAM PAUL, C. J. (Tanganyika), and THACKER, J. (Kenya)
#### REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
# (1) LACHMAN SINGH s/o JOWALA SINGH, (2) SOWRAN SINGH s/o BUJA RAM, Appellants (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1946
(Appeals from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya)
### Criminal law—Rape—Sentence.
The appellants were convicted of rape on a married woman and sentenced to nine years' and seven months' imprisonment with hard labour. They appealed against their sentences.
### Held (21-1-47).—That the sentences were not in the circumstances so excessive as to warrant interference.
Appeals dismissed.
### Kelly (Mangat with him) for the Appellants.
Todd, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—These are appeals against sentences on convictions for rape. The circumstances in which the acts of rape were committed disclose no redeeming feature but, on the contrary, show a deliberate action on the part of the two accused acting in concert in deceiving the prosecutrix by a false story that a letter from her husband was awaiting her thus luring her from her house at night and then in the most brazen fashion within a few yards of the adjoining houses occupied at the time they seized and carried their victim into the house and there raped her, doing their utmost it would appear to stifle her cries by putting her head cloth in her mouth or holding it against her mouth. A rape carried out in these circumstances by two men is of the worst possible character. Possibly another Judge might have passed a lesser sentence, but we cannot regard the sentence as so excessive as to warrant interference. It has to be remembered that so serious is the offence of rape regarded that it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The appeal against the convictions was not argued and having read the record we cannot see any reason for our interference with the convictions which were amply supported by the evidence. The appeals are dismissed.