M.W v Republic [2013] eKLR law nor will it go against public policy. A rapacious rapist and a serial killer will not be allowed to go scot-free because either deliberately or inadvertently, the prosecution authority has not deemed it fit to have him brought before a court within 24 hours or as case may be within 14 days." The Court of Appeal in JULIUS KAMAU MBUGUA -VS- REPUBLIC (Supra) concurred with Justice A. Emukule in the following words:"The rationale for prescribing monetary compensation in Section 72 (6) was that the person having already been unlawfully arrested or detained such unlawful arrest or detention cannot be done and hence the breach can only be vindicated by damages. Again, we respectively agree with Emukule J. that breach of Section 72 (3) (b) entitles the aggrieved person to monetary compensation only." I am of a similar view that the fact that an accused person was detained in police custody for a period exceeding twenty four hours does not automatically render a trial a nullity. As the Appellant did not raise the fact of his prolonged detention by police before the trial and no explanation therefore not having been given, I overrule the Appellant on ground of Appeal No. 1. My view is that he is at liberty to pursue compensation for damages against the person he alleges detained him. Under ground of appeal No. 2 the Appellant submitted that the medical reports produced in court were signed by any medical officer and were therefore not admissible in court. The medical reports produced before the trial court comprised a P3 form produced as P. Exhibit 1 and the treatment chits produced as P. Exhibits 2 (a) and (b) respectively. The P3 form was filled and produced by PW5, Jane Lamakoko, a Clinical Officer at Turbo Health Centre. A look at it shows that she signed it on 2nd April, 2009 and besides the official stamp are her signature and name. Further, the two medical treatment chits bear the official stamp of Turbo Health Centre. The Appellant did not question the authenticity of the hospital stamp at the trial. M, PW2, 3 and 5 confirmed that the complainant had been treated at Turbo Health Centre. My view is that the medical reports produced by the prosecution were authentic and the second ground of appeal must fail. I will consider grounds of appeal numbers 3, 4 and 6 together as they relate to the weight of evidence tendered by the prosecution before the trial. To this extent this court shall determine whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on consistency and strength of the evidence. PW1, the complainant testified that the Appellant who is her father would take her to his bedroom and defile her when her step mother is away. She said that this had happened severally. That she disclosed her ordeal to a neighbour who noticed her walking in funny manner and to teacher S who took her to hospital and later to Milimani Police Station. PW2, S. M was PW1's teacher. She testified that PW1's neighbour confided in her that the complainant (PW1) had problems at home. That having noted that she was walking in a funny way, approached her in a friendly manner and that is when she confided in her that her father had been defiling her since the year 2007. PW2 stated that she then took PW1 to hospital and to Police Station where she recorded her statement. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 4/8