Patrick Muyanze v Republic

and then went to the hospital for examination and treatment. She identified the appellant who used to call her ‘babe’. 5. During cross-examination, the complainant testified that the appellant was knew her as he was their neighbour. Further, that some people saw her leaving the appellant’s house, and no one else, apart from the appellant, had ever touched her. 6. PW2, John Njuguna, a clinician at Nairobi Women’s Hospital, produced the medical documents of PW1, the victim. During medical examination, it was noted there were no injuries on the body and vaginal areas. Her hymen was torn, with a previous history of penetration. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that several activities can cause the hymen to break. 7. PW3, Evelyne Wairimu, the mother of PW1 produced the birth certificate of PW1 which indicated that she was born on 22nd July 2008. She reiterated that the appellant was a neighbour who was a cart puller in their area. 8. PW4 Teresia Wanjiru, Investigating Officer at Waithaka Police Station, summarised the prosecution’s case. 9. In his defence the appellant contended that on the material day, he was in his home when he saw two women and a child. One of the women was the complainant’s mother who slapped him and accused him of defiling her child. That he went to report the incident to the police station where he was arrested. He told the court that he did not know the complainant or her mother and maintained his innocence. 10. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions which have been duly considered and there is no need to rehash them. 11. To succeed in a prosecution for defilement, it must be proven that the appellant committed an act that caused penetration with a child. "Penetration" under Section 2 of the Act means, "the partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organs of another person.” 12. Further, section 8(1) and (4) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 provides thus: 8. Defilement (1) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement. (4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years. 13. The prosecution adduced evidence that the complainant was born on 22nd July 2008. Her birth certificate was produced to that effect. She was sixteen years of age at the material time and a child within the meaning of the law, and the age ingredient of the offence was duly established. 14. The element of penetration is defined under section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act as including the partial or complete penetration of the vagina by the genital organs. PW1 gave a cogent and detailed account of the incident, testifying that the appellant, who was known to her, lured her into his house, touched her private parts, and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina. This evidence was corroborated by the medical report, which revealed an old tear of the hymen with healed scarring. The absence of an intact hymen is consistent with prior penile penetration of the minor and supports the finding that penetration occurred. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18681/eng@2025-12-17 2

page 2 of 3

15. As regards identification, PW1 was unequivocal that the perpetrator was the appellant, her neighbour. She provided a consistent and detailed description of the assault and remained unshaken under crossexamination. Her evidence was further corroborated by PW3, who knew the appellant as a neighbour and positively identified him as the offender. The conditions for identification were favourable, and the court is satisfied that the appellant was correctly identified. 16. In his defence, the appellant claimed that on 4th August 2024 he was at home when PW3 arrived with two women and a child, slapped him, and accused him of defiling her daughter. He denied the allegations and any prior acquaintance with PW1 or her mother. He further asserted that, when questioned, PW1 denied any sexual contact with him and instead implicated her cousin. Under crossexamination, he maintained that no witness had seen him with the complainant and that PW1 had been brought to his house that day. This defence amounted to no more than a bare denial and was rightly rejected by the trial court. I have arrived at the same conclusion. 17. The prosecution proved each ingredient of the offence of defilement beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s defence raised no reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The conviction under section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act is safe and is hereby affirmed. 18. On sentence, the appellant was sentenced to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. During sentencing, the court considered the pre-sentence report, the appellant's mitigation, and that he was a first offender and sentenced the appellant accordingly. In the premises, I see no reason to interfere. 19. In the end, the appeal is found to be lacking in merit and is dismissed in its entirety. Orders accordingly. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 D. KAVEDZA JUDGE In the presence of: Appellant Present Mr. Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18681/eng@2025-12-17 3

page 3 of 3