KM v Republic

The Court applied the MGK formulation of the ingredients of incest. The alleged P3 form irregularities (overwritten date, cancelled entry) were held minor and explained. The victim's sworn testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence of penetration. Age was proved by the clinic card produced by the investigating officer, corroborating the appellant's own admission, and the Court rejected the argument that an investigating officer cannot produce such an exhibit.

The Court distinguished the elements of the offence from the facts needed to attract the enhanced life sentence under the proviso. Since the appellant was condemned to the maximum sentence, proof that the victim was a child was required, and this was satisfied by the clinic card and the appellant's admission that she was twelve years old.

Applying Watu vs Republic, the Court held that discrepancies must be assessed against the totality of the evidence and are material only if they create doubt as to guilt. The record disclosed no contradiction between the complainant and PW5, and the core narrative - the night summons, the assault, and medical confirmation of penetration - stood unshaken, supported by circumstantial evidence from PW5 and PW6.

The trial magistrate expressly addressed the framing claim and noted the defence witnesses' absence on the material day; the first appellate Judge confirmed the magistrate was alive to the defence. The claimed grudge by PW2 and PW3 found no support, DW3 having conceded under cross-examination that no witness bore a grudge against the appellant.

Severity of sentence is a matter of fact under section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Court's jurisdiction over sentence arises only where the High Court enhanced the sentence or the trial court lacked power to impose it. Further, the issue was never raised before the High Court, and per the Supreme Court's ISLA decision the Court is bereft of jurisdiction over issues not addressed by the High Court.