Godfrey Njara Gichachi V Republic  EKLR
|Criminal Appeal 387 of 1993||07 Dec 1994|
Mary Atieno Ang'awa
High Court at Nyeri
Godfrey Njara Gichachi v Republic
Godfrey Njara Gichachi v Republic  eKLR
Gichachi v Republic
High Court, at Nyeri December 7, 1994
Criminal Appeal No 387 of 1993
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 1332 of 1992 of SRM’s Court at Kerugoya)
Evidence – corroboration – sexual offences – uncorroborated evidence of complainant – how Court should treat such evidence – duty of trial court to warn itself before convicting on such evidence – failure of trial court to warn itself – effect of such failure.
Criminal Practice and Procedure – judgments – writing judgments – duty of Court to give reasons for decision reached in each count and its findings –failure of Court to do so – effect of such failure.
The 3 accused in this case were charged with offence of rape contrary to section 140 of the Penal Code and robbery contrary to section 290(1) of the Penal Code. They all pleaded not guilty. Trial was held and were all found guilty of rape and stealing (not robbery). Accused 1 was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with 5 strokes of cane. Accused 2 committed to Youth Corrective Centre and accused 3 placed in probation for 3 years because they were minors. Accused 1 appealed.
The complainant alleged that the 3 raped her when they volunteered to take her home, and accused 1 and 3 searched her bag.
Counsel for accused raised points of technicalities, first, stating that the magistrate should have warned herself before convicting on evidence of a single witness, that identification was not sufficiently done and that medical evidence was not produced.
It appeared however that though accused 1 was convicted on both counts, he was not sentenced on count number 2.
1. Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be complied with in writing of judgments. There are two counts. A point to point decision should be reached in each count and its findings. Sentence should be for each count and the two may not be corroborated.
2. Warning by a trial magistrate must be given for relying on uncorroborated evidence of a single witness.
3. The medical evidence is required to be adhered to strictly which was not done.
No cases referred to.
1. Penal Code (cap 63) sections 140, 275, 296(1)
2. Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) section 169