SNT v Republic [2013] eKLR complainant was credible. The said evidence was also collaborated by medical evidence. “The complainant was clear in her testimony of what transpired and the accused never managed to reset the same. His defence is shallow and does not deal with the occurrence of the day in question.......... The P3 form filled and produced before court together with the treatment notes are a clear indication that penetration did take place and that the complainant was defiled. In the upshot I find that the testimony by the complainant is believable and the same has aptly been corroborated by the testimony of PW2 who saw her having difficulties in sitting..” The complainant was the step daughter of the appellant, thus the ingredients of the offence of incest under Section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act were established by the prosecution to the required standard. (17)The ground of appeal regarding the delay of two or three days before the appellant was arraigned in court was correctly determined by the High Court. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was arrested on 2nd October, 2006 and arraigned in court on 5th October, 2006. There was a delay of two or three days thus the appellant contends that the prosecution did not provide any reasonable explanation for the said delay and therefore, his constitutional rights under Section 72(3) of the former Constitution were violated. Section 72(3) of the former Constitution required that an accused person who is arrested for an offence other than a capital offence ought to be arraigned in court within 24 hours of his arrest, failure to do so, the prosecution assumes the burden of showing the delay was reasonable. See Paul Mwangi -vs- Republic- Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2006. This issue was raised by the appellant in the High Court and this is how the learned Judge expressed himself:“This court has noted that a delay of three days cannot be said to be inordinate taking into account the fact that the appellant is the father of the complainant herein and that there was also a need to secure medical report on the complainant. Further, this court notes that the appellant's rights to a fair trial were never prejudiced by the said delay.” We may also point out what this Court settled this matter by setting out some guiding principles in the case of; Julius Kamau Mbugua -vs- Republic- Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2008 while dealing with a similar issue;“In our view, it is not the duty of a trial court or an appellate court dealing with an appeal from a trial court to go beyond the scope of the criminal trial and adjudicate on the violations of the right to personal liberty which happened before the criminal court assumed jurisdiction over the accused. However, the trial court can take cognizance of such pre-charge violation of person liberty, if the violation is linked, to or affects the criminal process. As an illustration, where the prolonged detention of a suspect in police custody before being charged affects the fairness of the ensuing trial e.g. where an accused has suffered trial related prejudice as a result of death of an important defence witness in the meantime, or the witness has lost memory, in such cases, the trial court could give the appropriate protection like an acquittal. Otherwise the breach of a right to personal liberty of a suspect by police per se is merely a breach of a civil right, though constitutional in nature, which is beyond the statutory duty of a criminal court and which is by Section 72 (6) expressly compensatable by damages.” http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 5/7