Muturi v Republic [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR)

Muturi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E067 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR) (6 September 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Naivasha

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E067 of 2021

LN Mutende, J

September 6, 2022

Between

Peter Karenjo Muturi

Applicant

and

Republic

Respondent

(From Original Sexual Offence Case No. E20 of 2019 of Engineer Court)

Ruling

1. Peter Karenjo Muturi, the Applicant, was charged with the offence of Defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, following allegations of having molested a minor aged 14 years, NMW.

2. Having been taken through full trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment.

3. Through an application filed herein on March 10, 2021, he seeks reduction of the sentence, and, in the alternative he prays to be released on probation. The application is premised on grounds that; he is remorseful; he hails from a poor background, he is the sole breadwinner of his family and has spent one (1) year, eight (8) months in custody prior to being sentenced.

4. A Probation Officer’s Report was filed following a social inquiry carried out. It was indicated that his family were willing to support in his rehabilitation. However, the victim was not reached. It was established that the applicant is a repeat offender; having committed similar offences before. That he was placed on probation for a period of two (2) years but he re-offended while serving the sentence. That notwithstanding it was recommended that he could perform Community Service.

5. At the hearing the applicant urged the court to release him as he was due to be released in a week’s time.

6. Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act provides this;“A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years”.

7. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides this;“Subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the Penal Code, every sentence shall be deemed to commence from and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under sub section (1) has prior, to such sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”

8. In meting out the sentence the learned trial magistrate took into account the period the applicant was in remand custody, and, the fact of the applicant having been a young man.

9. In the premises the application is bereft of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

10. It is so ordered.

DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIVASHA THIS 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022. L. MUTENDEJUDGE