Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal 23 of 2006|
|Parties:||Dickson Mwita Mangiti v Republic|
|Date Delivered:||07 Nov 2006|
|Court:||High Court at Kisii|
|Citation:||Dickson Mwita Mangiti v Republic|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII
Criminal Appeal 23 of 2006
DICKSON MWITA MANGITI ………………….…. APPELLANT
REPUBLIC ……………………………………… RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence of the Resident Magistrate’s Court
at Kehancha in Criminal Case No.376 of 2004 – M. K. K. SEREM, RM)
Appellant is charged with the offence of unnatural offence contrary to S.162 (b) Penal Code
in that on 29th June 2004 at Kegonga Sub Location in Kuria District he had carnal knowledge of a she goat against the Order of nature.
I have considered the appeal and re-evaluated the evidence. I find that the appellant was
properly convicted. PW2 SAMUEL MARWA candidly told court how he found the appellant
carnally abusing the she goat. He had tied it and had removed his trousers. PW2 had been
attracted to the scene by noises from the goat. PW4 SOPHIA MOKAMI had also heard the
noises from the goat which was tied in her piece of land. He found appellant there.
BENJAMIN EMUKULE (PW5) a Veterinary Officer examined the goat and concluded
that it was carnally abused.
The evidence was therefore overwhelming and accused’s defence did not dislodge it. He was
As to the sentence appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
That is the maximum sentence provided for. Appellant was a first offender and pleaded for
leniency. He said he was mad and sterile though there was no proof of this. The trial
magistrate thought that appellant was worse than a beast. Still I feel that he should not have
been awarded the maximum sentence, more so being a first offender though the offence is
I will allow the appeal on sentence.
I therefore reject the appeal against conviction. I however set aside the sentence of 14
years imprisonment and substitute it with a sentence of three (3) years imprisonment from the
date of conviction.
Dated 7th November 2006.
Delivered in presence of:
Mr. Chirchir for state.