Brian Omondi Nguka v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2017 BRIAN OMONDI NGUKA..............APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC......................................RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from original conviction and sentence in Sexual Offence Act Case No.5 of 2016 in Homa Bay CM’s court dated 8 th September, 2017 - Hon. S. Ndegwa, PM) JUDGMENT [1] The appellant, BRIAN OMONDI NGUKA, appeared before the principal magistrate at Homa Bay charged with defilement, contrary to Section 8(1) (2) of the Sexual Offences act, in that on the 16 th December 2015 at [particulars withheld] in Homa Bay Town, he defiled F G O, a child aged eight (8) years. In the alternative, the appellant committed an indecent act with the same child, contrary to Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act. [2] After trial, the appellant was convicted on the main count and sentenced to life imprisonment. He preferred the present appeal after being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence. His grounds of appeal are those in the petition of appeal filed herein on 14 th September 2017. He represented himself at the hearing of the appeal and fully relied on his written submissions. [3] The State/Respondent opposed the appeal through the learned prosecution counsel, MR. OLUOCH, who submitted that the major complaint by the appellant is that the prosecution relied on two contradictory P3 forms. However, the two forms were adequately explained in that PW6 testified that he did not examine the complainant since she was in severe pain and unco-operative. He did not therefore make any findings. Instead, PW5 eventually examined the complainant and confirmed that she had been defiled. [4] The learned prosecution counsel, submitted further that there was no contradiction in the two P3 forms and in appreciation of Section 124 of the Evidence act, the trial court gave reasons for the appellant’s conviction. That, the appellant was positively identified by the complainant. That, PW3 saw the complainant, emerging from a building while crying and without her underpants which were traced in the building. That, it was in that building that the appellant was found. The learned prosecution counsel, contended that this appeal is unmerited and urged this court to dismiss it. [5] Upon due consideration of the appeal in the light of the submissions by both sides, this court reconsidered the evidence adduced at the trial bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and formed the opinion that the fact of defilement was not disputed and was in any event, established by the prosecution through the evidence of the complainant, F G (PW1), her mother, T A (PW2) and the Clinical Officer, LYNETTE BERNARD CLEMENT (PW5). [6] The appellant’s defence was essentially a denial of his involvement in the offence and as indication that he was arrested and charged with the offence without any good cause. He contended that he was arrested as a result of mistaken identity. He thus implied that somebody else and not himself was responsible for the offence. [7] However, he was identified by the complainant as the person who defiled her in a building under construction. She said that he took her there and made her to lie down before removing her pants and defiling her. She was seen emerging from that building while crying and without underpants. LORNA OLUOCH (PW3), a Community Health Worker, is the person who saw her emerge from the building. This was on the material date at about 1.00 p.m. She (PW3) after a while saw a young man emerge from the same building. She did not see his face but some young men nearby knew him. He walked away fast and disappeared. [8] People who saw the suspect informed the complainant’s father, M O O (PW4), that his name was OMONDI. He was later traced and found to be the appellant.

page 1 of 2