RPA 00285/16/HC/KIG Page |2 [05] The appellant seized the High Court alleging that he was charged with defilement, but argues that the court ignored that he cohabited with Masengesho who was later impregnated by a man named Claude who fled to Uganda, according to authorities. [06] He agreed with the girl to cohabite, and later came to argue in the village. To the question of whether he wants a sentence below 10 years, he replied that has no opinion, adding that if possible he would love to have his sentence reduced. [07] The prosecution argues that the defendant’s sentence cannot be reduced because the law provides for a sentence of life imprisonment that cannot be reduced to less than ten years. [08] The Court finds that the appellant's intent was to convince the Court that to give him a reduced sentence on the ground that he had cohabited with the girl without knowing that she was underage. [09] Article 110 of Law no 15/04 of 12/06/04 relating to evidence in court provides that a confession made in court is evidence of the statement made by the confessing party, but, it does not say that the confession made before the judicial police and the prosecution is invalid. [10] The Court finds that the appellant admitted to having defiled the child. The fact that he claims to have had sexual intercourse with her without knowing it was an offence does not absolve him of his guilt but he should be punished as held in the first instance. [11] The Court also finds that Article 78 of the Penal Code mentioned above provides that if there are mitigating circumstances, life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years. [12] The Court therefore finds that Habufite's sentence was reduced on the ground that he had pleaded guilty, and the law does not permit to reduce it further as indicated in the preceding paragraph. [13] The appellant is therefore convicted of the offense under Article 191 of Organic Law nº 01/12 of 3/05/12 establishing the Penal Code, and his sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment is unchanged. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [14] Holds that the appeal filed by Habufite Emmanuel is admissible but unfounded. 2|Page