Gideon Changamwe v Republic [2018] KEHC 7260 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN   THE HIGH  COURT OF KENYA

AT GARISSA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 28  OF 2017

GIDEON CHANGAMWE.............................APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC................................................RESPONDENT

(FROM THE  CONVICTION  AND SENTENCE INGARISSA

CMCRIMINALCASE  NO. 207 ‘B OF 2016

BY T. L. OLE TANCHU –SRM)

JUDGMENT

1. The  appellant   was charged  in  the  magistrate’s  court  at Garissa  with defilement  contrary  to  section   8 (1) as  read  with  section  8 (2) of  the  Sexual  Offences  Act  No. 3. of 2006.   The  particulars  of  the   offence  were  that  diverse  dates  between  1st  January, 2015  and  28th  February, 2016  at  [particulars withheld]  in  Garissa Township  within  Garissa  County,  intentionally  and  unlawfully caused his  genital  organ  namely  penis  to  penetrate   the  genital  organ  namely  vagina   of  M.M  ( name  withheld)   a  child aged  10 years.

2. In the  alternative  he  was  charged  with  indecent  act  with  a child,  contrary  to section  11 ( 1)  of  the  Sexual Offences  Act.  The particulars of  the  offence  were  that on  the  same  diverse  dates,  at   [particulars withheld]  in  Garissa  Township  within  Garissa  County, intentionally  touched  the vagina  of  M. M a  child  aged   7  years  with  his   penis.

3. He denied   the charges.  After  a  full  trial he  was  convicted  of  the  main  count  of   defilement,  and sentenced  to life  imprisonment .

4. Dissatisfied with  the   decision  of  the  trial court,  the appellant  came  to  this  court  on  appeal.   He filed his appeal on 23rd May 2017. Before   his  appeal  was  heard  however, he  filed  an amended   petition  of  appeal  as  well as  written submissions  which   he  relied  upon.   The  amended  grounds  of  appeal  are as  follows:

(i) The  trial  magistrate  erred  in  law  to  convict  him  when  the  prosecution   failed  to  estimate  in  accuracy  age of  the  complainant  as  required  by law.

(ii) The  trial  magistrate  erred  in  law   and  fact  to  convict  him  without  considering  that  the  alleged  penetration  was not  caused  by  him  as   alleged.

(iii) The  learned  trial  magistrate  erred  in  accepting  or  admitting   complainants  evidence  which  was  tailored  by  coercion  been  imposed  by  her  mother

(iv) The  trial magistrate  erred  in  law  and  fact   to convict  him  without  considering  that  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  witnesses  was contradictionary  and  full  of  inconsistencies.

(v) The Prosecution failed to prove their case  beyond  reasonable  doubt.

(vi) The medical evidence  was dubious.

(vii) There  was  an existing   vendetta  between  him  and  the  complainants  mother

5. At  the  hearing  of  the  appeal,  the  appellant  relied  on  his  written  submissions,  which  I  have  perused  and  considered.

6. The  learned  Principal Prosecuting   Counsel  Mr. Okemwa  submitted  that  the  prosecution  called  four  witnesses  in  the  trial court,  and  that this  being   a  first  appellate   court  it  should  review  evidence  on  record.

7. With  regard  to  age,  counsel  submitted  that  the  age  of  the  complainant  was  proved  by  the  evidence  of  the  complainant,  and  the  age  assessment  report.

8. Penetration  was  proved  because  the  complainant  said  that  the  appellant  did  bad things  to  her,  and   later  said  that  he  f****  her.  Counsel however felt  that   this  evidence  was  suspicious, and added  that  Doctor’s  reports  these  days  were  suspect,  because of  the way  they were  done.

9. With  regard  to  the perpetrator,   counsel  submitted   that  the  appellant  lived in  the  same  house with  the  complainant  and her  mother, and  was  the complainant’s  step-father. Counsel pointed out however that  there  were conflicting  statements between the  mother  and the complainant on  what exactly happened.  In addition,  it  also arose  in cross-examination,  that  there were  existing  disagreements  between  the  complainant’s  mother  and  the  appellant  which  disagreement  the  appellant  raised  in  his  defence.

10. This  been  a first  appeal,  and  I am  required  to re-evaluate  all  the  evidence  on  record, and come  to my own  conclusion  and  inferences.   I  have to bear   in mind  that  I  did  not  see  the  witnesses   testify  to determine  their  demeanour, and  give  due  allowance  to  that  fact. See the case of:  Okeno -vs- Republic ( 1972)  E.A. 32.

11. I  have  re-examined   and  re-evaluated  the evidence  of  the  four  prosecution  witnesses,  and  the  defence  of  the  appellant.  I have also perused  the  Judgment  of  the  trial  court.

12. The  prosecution  in  any  criminal  case  is  required  to  prove  the  charge  and  all  its  elements  beyond   any  reasonable  doubt.

13. An accused person does not have a burden  to  prove  his   or  her  innocence.  The  elements  of  defilements  are:

(i) Age of the complainant, which has to be below 18years.

(ii) Penetration

(ii) Identity of the culprit.

14. The age of the complainant was testified to by the complainant in her  affirmed evidence.  She stated that she was a standard four pupil   at   [particulars withheld]   Primary School.  Earlier  on, when  she  was  been  examined  by  the  trial  court  as  to her  intelligence  and  her  understanding  of  an  oath,  she  said  she  was  ten  (10 )  years of  age.

15. In   my  view  the  complainant  should  have been led  by  the prosecution  to  state  her  age  during the  affirmed   testimony,  even  if  she  had mentioned  her  age  when  she was been  tested  for intelligence. The mother  PW2  A  K  M  did not  testify  to  the  age  of  the  complainant,  who  was  her  daughter.  She should have done  so.

16. The only  evidence  on  the age of  the complainant  on   record,  was   the  age  assessment   report   form  dated  29th  February, 2016,  whose maker did  not appear  in  court  to  testify, nor  was  he  identified  in  evidence  by  anybody.

17. The learned  magistrate, must however  have  seen  the  complainant,  when he  determined  that  she  was  a young  person  who  could  not  even  be  sworn  for  testimony.

18. The complainant was obviously  a Primary  school  pupil in standard four.  However,  with  the   evidence on  record,  one  cannot s ay  that  the  prosecution  proved  the  age of  the complainant  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  The  fact  that  one  is  in standard  four,  and  the  fact   that  he  or  she  does not  understand  the  nature of  an  oath  itself   does not  prove  age of  a  person. The   age assessment   report was  also  neither produced   by  its maker  nor  was the  maker  identified. Therefore, it is  worthless.

19. I  thus  find that  the  age  of  the  complainant  was  not   proved  by  the  prosecution beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Age being  a very important  ingredient  in  defilement  matters,  where it  is  not  proved  like in  the  present  case,  an  accused  person  is  entitled  to  an  acquittal.

20. The second   issue is on penetration.  The  complainant  stated  specifically  that  the  appellant  had  penetrated  her  on  that date  28th  February, 2016.   She  also  stated  that   the  appellant  had  defiled  her  twice  before  but  could  not  remember  the  dates.

21. The  mother  PW2,  stated  that  she  was keenly  observing  the appellant  on  that  day. That  she  pretended  to  sleep  and  saw  the  appellant  move  from  their  nearby mattress  naked  and  got  on  top  of   the child,  the complainant.  She  did not  say  anything  more  than  that,  regarding  penetration    but stated   in  cross-examination  that  she  had  suspected  the  appellant,  because  previously  he  used  to leave the  mattress   where  they slept together  and  go to the  children mattress  when  drunk.

22. In  the  treatment  notes  for  the  complainant,  it was  recorded  that   the  hymen  was  broken with  an old  scar.  This  information  was also  contained  in  the   P3  form  which  was  filled  later.  Both  documents  were  produced  in  court.

23. The  Prosecuting  Counsel   has  stated  that  these days,  there  are  doubts  as   to  the  contents  of   medical  reports.  In  my  view, in  this  area  of  Garissa  some of  the medical  documents,  such  as  the  age  assessment   report  are  filled  casually.  Even   P3 forms  and  other  reports   of  a  medical  nature  are  filled  casually. However,  it  all depends  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  for  the  court  to determine  whether  indeed  they  were  genuine.

24. The  medical  reports,  and  the  P3  form  seem  to  follow  the  narrative   already  reported  by  the  complainant  and  her mother, that  the  appellant  had  defiled   her  severally  before, and  also  on the   28th  February 2016.  Both reports are   thus suspect.   In  my view  in  the  particular  circumstances  of  this  case,  I find  that    there  was no medical evidence of penetration. As such penetration   was not proved.

25. To  add  to  the  above,  there  was  an  obvious  disagreement  between  the  appellant  and  the mother  of  the  complainant.  The mother of the complainant  had  children. The appellant also had children  with   another   woman  in  Ukambani.  The  appellant  and  the  mother  of  the  complainant, met in  Garissa  and decided to  live  together in a one  room  house, where  they   also  slept   with  the  children  of  the  mother  of  the  complainant.

26. It  is   the  appellants  defence,  and  also  the   mother  of  the  complainant’s  story, brought  up  in cross-examination  that  the two  had  disagreements, and  their   relationships  had been  strained   for  some time, though  they  were  still living  together.  According  to the  appellant,   the main  reason  for  the disagreement  was because  he  had  indicated  to the  mother  of  the  complainant,  that  he  wanted  to bring  his  children  with  another woman  to  Garissa  to   attend  school  in  Garissa,  and  live  with  them.   According  to  him  the   complainant’s  mother   was  strongly  opposed  to  that  suggestion, and  thus  the  cause  of  the  disagreement.

27. In  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  that  disagreement   might  as  well  be   true.  It  could  also  have been  the  cause   of  the  report   to the  police  about  the  defilement  of  the  complainant.  Since  this  evidence   of  both  prosecution and   the  defence   has  created  a doubt,  the  benefit  of  that  doubt   should  have been  given  to the  appellant  by the  learned  magistrate. On that account  also,  the  appeal  will  succeed.

28. In  my view  though  this  appeal succeeds,  the  appellant  should  not  go  back   and   live  in  the   same  house  with the  complainant’s  mother.  If  he  has  his  things  there,  he  should  go  and  collect  them  and  find  an alternative  place  to  live.

29. I allow  the appeal,  quash  the conviction  and  set  aside  the  sentence.  I order  that  the  appellant be  released  forthwith  from  custody,  unless  otherwise  lawfully  held.

Dated, and  Delivered  at  Garissa  this 18th  day of April, 2018

George  Dulu

JUDGE