Rex v Singh and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1946) [1947] EACA 14 (1 January 1947)

## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA

## Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), SIR G. GRAHAM PAUL, C. J. (Tanganyika), and THACKER, J. (Kenya)

#### REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)

# (1) LACHMAN SINGH s/o JOWALA SINGH, (2) SOWRAN SINGH s/o BUJA RAM, Appellants (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2)

Criminal Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1946

(Appeals from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya)

### Criminal law—Rape—Sentence.

The appellants were convicted of rape on a married woman and sentenced to nine years' and seven months' imprisonment with hard labour. They appealed against their sentences.

### Held (21-1-47).—That the sentences were not in the circumstances so excessive as to warrant interference.

Appeals dismissed.

### Kelly (Mangat with him) for the Appellants.

Todd, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.

JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—These are appeals against sentences on convictions for rape. The circumstances in which the acts of rape were committed disclose no redeeming feature but, on the contrary, show a deliberate action on the part of the two accused acting in concert in deceiving the prosecutrix by a false story that a letter from her husband was awaiting her thus luring her from her house at night and then in the most brazen fashion within a few yards of the adjoining houses occupied at the time they seized and carried their victim into the house and there raped her, doing their utmost it would appear to stifle her cries by putting her head cloth in her mouth or holding it against her mouth. A rape carried out in these circumstances by two men is of the worst possible character. Possibly another Judge might have passed a lesser sentence, but we cannot regard the sentence as so excessive as to warrant interference. It has to be remembered that so serious is the offence of rape regarded that it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The appeal against the convictions was not argued and having read the record we cannot see any reason for our interference with the convictions which were amply supported by the evidence. The appeals are dismissed.