Summary of the evidence
12.The prosecution in advancing its case against the appellant called 7 witnesses in support thereof. PW1, BM, a class one pupil at [particulars withheld] said that she was going to buy milk when she was called by the appellant, who bought for her a lollipop and did tabia mbaya on her. The appellant then sent her to go and bring other children and she came with PW2, FM and Flora. The appellant gave them Ksh.10 to buy Juice and when they returned to his house, he gave them cookies and honey. He then removed their dresses, inserted his fingers in their vaginas and told them not to tell anyone. The appellant had on an earlier occasion bought for her BG and then inserted his fingers into her vagina. The appellant tried inserting his penis into her vagina, but when it could not penetrate, he inserted his fingers instead. The appellant, who lived next to their home, was the witness’ mother’s friend.
13.During cross examination, she stated that she knew the appellant and he had previously done tabia mbaya to her, while she was alone, but she did not tell anyone. The appellant took her, PW2 and Flora to his bed and did tabia mbaya to them after which she was taken to the hospital.
14.PW2, FM, a pre-unit pupil at [particulars withheld] was with PW1 when the appellant, whom she knew, gave them money. They then went inside his house where he told them to undress and lie on his bed. The appellant then told them to close their eyes and he inserted his penis into their vaginas and did tabia mbaya to them until 1.00 pm.
15.During cross examination, she reiterated that she was with PW1 and Flora in the appellant’s house. She told her mother that the appellant had done tabia mbaya to her and PW1.
16.PW3 CW and PW4 EK, PW1’s and PW’s mothers, said that they were at work on the material day. On her way from work, PW4 learnt that her child had been defiled. When PW3 on her part returned home, and found PW1, who appeared unhappy, watching T.V. PW1 informed PW3 that the appellant had done tabia mbaya to her, PW2 and Flora. PW3 went to the appellant’s house but she did not find him. PW3 informed mama Mwendwa, the appellant’s employer, of what had transpired. On her way out, PW3 met with PW4 and they both reported to Gachero police station, but were referred to Timau police station. They then took the victim to Nanyuki general hospital, recorded their statements with the police and the appellant was arrested the following day. The two mother told the court that PW1 was aged 7 years while PW2 was 9 years old at the time of the incident and produced their birth certificates.
17.During cross examination, PW3 stated that she was working with the appellant in the same company and that PW1 had informed her that it was the appellant who had defiled her. PW1 had never disclosed to PW3 that she had previously been defiled, because the appellant had threatened her. On the previous occasions, the appellant inserted his fingers and not his penis. PW3 denied framing the appellant because there was no bad blood between them. PW1 told PW3 that she cried and she was feeling pain in her vagina. PW4 knew PW3 and the appellant when the incident occurred.
18.PW5 PC Hasaan Kiptum attached at Nanyuki police station went with Cpl Francis Reparayi to arrest the appellant and took him to Timau police station.
19.During cross examination, he stated that he was only tasked with arresting the appellant and not investigating the case.
20.PW6 PC Angeline Naru attached at Timau police station and the investigating officer, was on the material day at the station when the report of the incident herein was made by the complainants. She issued the arrest order for the appellant to be arrested and charged.
21.During cross examination, she stated that their investigations established that the complainants had been defiled by the appellant. The appellant was not taken to the hospital together with the complainants because he had not yet been arrested and that he had lured the complainants with money.
22.In re-examination, she affirmed that she took the children to hospital and the report confirmed that they had been defiled.
23.PW7 Dr. Dominic Muthui, a clinician at Nanyuki filled the complainants’ PRC and P3 forms, and produced them as exhibits. He reported having been told by PW1 that she had been previously defiled in January and September 2019. On examination, PW1 had a whitish discharge and the hymen was broken. The laboratory investigation revealed the presence of bacterial cells. On examining PW2, her vagina was red, inflamed and there was pain indicative of use of force and the hymen was broken. There was a whitish discharge, bruises and epithelial cells.
24.During cross examination, he stated that he was the one who had examined and treated the complainants, that PW2’s clothes was tainted with both soil and blood while those of PW1 had only soil. The whitish discharge was due to an infection.
25.In re-examination, he stated that the injuries were only on the complainants’ genitals.
26.Put on his defence, the appellant gave sworn testimony that on the material day, PW1, PW2 and Flora were sent to his home by PW3. On their way to where PW3 was, he gave them Ksh.10, to buy sweets. PW3, who was his wife, requested him for Ksh. 3,000 for a self help group. When he told PW3 that he had no money, PW3 threatened to report him to the police station. He walked away and continued with his normal work until 10.00 pm, when a police officer knocked at his gate. He was then arrested and taken to Timau police station. He was taken to the hospital the following day and later informed that he had defiled two children. The case was fuelled by a debt that he allegedly owed PW3 and he knew both PW3 and PW4.
27.During cross examination, he admitted that he worked in the same company with PW3. He had an intimate relationship with PW3 for 2 years and their homes were about 300 meters apart. He owed PW3 Ksh.3,000 and his refusal to marry her as a 2nd wife was the cause of the bad blood between them.
Analysis and determination
28.This being a first appeal, the court is duty bound to re-appraise and re-analyse the evidence afresh, draw its own conclusions and make its own independent findings, bearing in mind that it did not have the advantage of seeing the witnesses testify. See David Njuguna Wairimu v R (2010) eKLR.
29.On whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the birth certificates serial numbers xxxxx and xxxxxx for the complainants produced as exhibits established that PW1 and PW2 were aged 7 years and 10 years respectively.
30.PW1 and PW2 narrated how the appellant allured them to his house where he told them to undress, lie on his bed and close their eyes. The appellant then inserted his finger into their vaginas and defiled them. The appellant also admitted that the complainants came to his house on the material day. It is clear from the P3 and PRC forms and the evidence of PW7 that the complainants were defiled, as PW1 had a whitish discharge, the hymen was broken and there was presence of bacterial cells. In addition other hand, PW2’s vagina was inflamed, the hymen was broken, and there was a whitish discharge, bruises and epithelial cells.
31.It is irrefutable that the complainants, PW3 and PW4 all knew the appellant. PW1, PW3 and the appellant concurred that they lived 300 meters apart. There is thus no strip of doubt in my mind that the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence herein.
32.It is therefore my finding that all the ingredients of the offence of defilement were proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction of the appellant was therefore safe and proper.
33.I find the fault on the trial court of non - consideration of the appellant’s alibi defence, to be completely misconceived, as no such defence was raised by the appellant during trial.
34.I find the fault on the prosecution to call Flora to testify to fall by the wayside, because the 7 witnesses called by the prosecution in support of its case were more than satisfactory. In any event no specific number of witness is necessary to prove an offence. In sexual offences even a single witness in the complement may suffice.
35.On the propriety of the sentence meted out to the appellant, the same rests on the discretion of the trier of facts as was encapsulated in Bernard Kimani Gacheru v Republic  eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated that;
36.Section 8(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences Act provides that, “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.” That is the sentence the trial court, after due observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, a benefit this court lacks, meted out to the appellant, and it cannot be faulted for doing so.
37.On the whole, I find the appeal on both conviction and sentence to be bereft of merit and I order it dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA, ONLINE, THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022PATRICK J. O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:Appellant in personMiss Nandwa for the RespondentCourt Assistant: Mwenda