SNT v Republic [2013] eKLR appellant sent the other siblings to the shop and told the complaint to stay behind. The appellant took the complainant to his bedroom, lifted her dress and placed her on the bed. He removed his own clothes and applied jelly on his penis and proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the complainant. At that time, the complainant's mother, PW2, JMN (J) was away looking for food for the family. According to the complainant, the appellant covered her mouth with his hand so as to prevent her from screaming. The appellant also told her that he would henceforth be having sexual intercourse with her and not her mother. The complainant testified that the appellant had on a previous occasion had carnal knowledge with her and he had threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the secret ordeal to anyone. 4. At around 5:00 p.m. on the same day, while J was cooking, she observed the complainant was having difficulties while in a sitting position. Upon inquiring, the complainant informed her that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Jane examined the complainant and noticed she had some spermatozoa on the vagina. J told the court that when she confronted the appellant, he refused to take the child to the hospital. Jane informed the appellant's mother and other elders about the sexual assault. The appellant's mother forbade Jane from disclosing the sexual assault to anybody else. 5. In defiance, J took the complainant to the police station on 27th September, 2006. She recorded her statement with PW3, PC Pansil Kamau (PC Kamau) who also referred them to Kangema Health Centre, where the complainant was examined and treated. PW3, Paul M. Gathogo (Paul), a clinical officer at the said Centre testified that upon examining the complainant on 28th September, 2006 he noticed a whitish discharge and bruises around the vaginal opening. He confirmed there was penetration and the complainant had had sexual intercourse. 6. After considering the above evidence the learned trial magistrate placed the appellant on his defence. He gave an unsworn statement and narrated how on 2nd October, 2006 while at his home police officers arrested him. He denied committing the offence he was charged with. 7. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence of incest and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the trial court's decision, the appellant appealed to the High Court. In a judgment dated 17th February, 2012 the High Court (Wakiaga, J.) confirmed the appellant's conviction and enhanced the sentence of 14 years to life imprisonment. It is against that decision of the High Court that the appellant has filed the current appeal based on the following grounds:The learned Judge erred in law by failing to hold that the lower court did not rely on any evidence to ascertain that the appellant penetrated the complainant (Caroline) as required under Section 36(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. The learned Judge erred in law by failing to hold according to the charge sheet that the sexual assault was reported and booked in the occurrence book on 12th October, 2006 while he was arrested on 2nd October, 2006 before the alleged offence was reported. The learned Judge erred in law by failing to hold that the appellant's constitutional rights were violated by being arrested on 2nd October, 2006 and arraigned in court on 5th October, 2006; and that no reasonable explanation was given for the said delay. The learned Judge erred in law by invoking Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code and enhancing sentence without taking into account that the prosecution had not proved the age of the complainant as required under Section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. 8. During the hearing of this appeal the appellant appeared in person and indicated that he would rely entirely on his written submissions filed on 26th September, 2013. It is argued in the said http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/7