1.JM (Appellant) was charged with defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006 (the Act). Appellant also faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006. The offences were allegedly committed on January 8, 2020 against FM a child aged 9 years.
2.Complainant stated that on the material date at night, she went to sleep and left her mother and Appellant who is her father in the living room. That in the night, she was awoken from her sleep by pain in her vagina only to find Appellant who is her father defiling her. That Appellant then left her bed and went to his bed next to her bed.
3.Complainant’s mother stated that on January 10, 2020, he heard Complainant who was in bed threaten to tell her something. That she went to the bedroom and found Complainant on her bed and Appellant who had his trouser open and lower on the bed she shared with him next to Complainant’s bed. That Complainant reported that Appellant had uncovered her for which he was subsequently arrested.
4.Complainant was examined on January 13, 2020 and a P3 tendered in evidence revealed that her hymen was hyperemic and torn which was found to be evidence of forceful penetration.
5.Complainant’s complaint was subsequently reported to police by the area chief who arrested Appellant and handed him over to PC Kathambi on January 10, 2020 who preferred charges against Appellant.
6.Appellant in his sworn defence denied the offence. He stated that he was framed by Complainant’s mother after the quarreled about her drinking habit.
7.After considering both the Prosecution and Defence cases, the learned trial magistrate found the Prosecution case proved and on September 23, 2022 convicted and sentenced Appellant to serve 20 years’ imprisonment
8.Dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence, Appellant lodged the instant Appeal and in the amended grounds raised the following issues:i.The prosecution case was contradictoryii.Crucial witnesses did not testifyiii.Medical evidence did not link him to the offenceiv.The time he spent in custody was not considered
9.This being a first appeal, the court’s duty is as was stated by the Court of Appeal in Mark Oiruri Mose v Republic  e KLR that:
10.The elements constituting the offence of defilement are proof of penetration, the age of the minor and the identity of the assailant (See CWK v Republic  eKLR).
11.It is trite that the age of a minor is a critical component of a defilement charge and that it is an element which must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (See Kaingu Kasomo vs Republic Criminal Appeal No 504 of 2010).
13.Complainant’s child health and nutrition card reveals that she was born on December 26, 2011 and was therefore 9 years as at the date she was allegedly defiled
14.Concerning penetration, Section 2 of the Act defines penetration to entail: -
15.The P3 form dated January 13, 2020 tendered in evidence revealed that complainant had a hyperemic and torn hymen and I find that the trial magistrate correctly found that penetration was proved.
16.Concerning Appellant’s culpability, there is no doubt that complainant was the sole witness to the offence. In the case of Stephen Nguli Mulili v Republic  eKLR the Court of Appeal had this to say regarding reliance on Section 124 of the Evidence Act to convict:
17.Appellant was cohabiting with complainant’s mother and the fact that Appellant was not a stranger to the complainant was conceded by Appellant. That Appellant and complainant’s mother used to share a bed in the same bedroom as Complainant is not denied by the Appellant. That Complainant and Appellant was in the bedroom together has been corroborated by complainant’s mother who stated that he rushed to the bedroom when she heard Complainant threaten to tell her something and that Complainant had informed her that Appellant had uncovered her is well corroborated. The evidence on record reveals that there was no possibility of mistaken identity and hence, the trial magistrate’s finding that Appellate had been recognized as the perpetrator was well proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
18.Concerning the Appellant’s contention that Prosecution failed to call crucial witnesses, Section 143 of Evidence Act (Cap 80) Laws of Kenya provides:
21.In the instant case. the prosecution was at liberty to call the witnesses they deemed necessary to establish and prove their case. One Mama Mercy who Appellant complains was not called as a witness did not witness the incident and was therefore not a necessary witness in this case.
24.The trial magistrate cited Elizabeth Waithiegeni Gatimu vs Republic  eKLR which reiterated the proposition that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of an accused is sufficient and I find as did the trial court that there was no contradiction in the prosecution case and that Appellant’s defence did not create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
26.Appellant was arrested on January 10, 2020 and remained in custody throughout the trial until the date of his conviction and sentence on September 23, 2021. The record reveals that the learned trial magistrate did not take this period into consideration at the point of sentencing the Appellant.
27.From the foregoing analysis, I make the following orders:1.The appeal only succeeds on sentence2.The 20-year sentence shall commence from January 10, 2020 when Appellant was arrested.