M.W v Republic [2013] eKLR are sufficient to prove its case beyond all doubts. That is why under proviso to Section 124 of the Evidence Act, in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the complainant can stand on its own. I have already observed that the prosecution called sufficient number of witnesses who adduced evidence that was concrete against the Appellant. No further decorations with superfluity of witnesses was required. After all, the Appellant's defence and his cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not in any way rebut the latter's strong evidence. Finally, the Appellant submitted that the prosecution did not cite the specific provision of the law under which the charge sheet was amended. I have noted that the amendment of the charge sheet was done on 29th May, 2009. The initial charge sheet was filed in court on 3rd April, 2009 in which the main charge to Count I was defilement of a girl contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The amendment replaced this charge with one of incest by male contrary to Section 20 (1) of the same Act. Under Section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution can amend the charge sheet at any stage of the trial before the close of its case. It provides as follows:"214. (1) Where, at any stage of a trial before the close of the case for the prosecution, it appears to the court that the charge is defective, either in substance or in form, the court may make such order for the alteration of the charge, either by way of amendment of the charge or by the substitution or addition of a new charge, as the court thinks necessary to meet the circumstances of the case: Provided that (i) where a charge is so altered, the court shall thereupon call upon the accused person to plead to the altered charge; (ii) where a charge is altered under this subsection the accused may demand that the witnesses or any of them be recalled and give their evidence afresh or be further crossexamined by the accused or his advocate, and, in the last-mentioned event, the prosecution shall have the right to re-examine the witness on matters arising out of further cross-examination. (2) Variance between the charge and he evidence adduced in support of it with respect to the time at which the alleged offence was committed is not material and the charge need not be amended for the variance if it is proved that the proceedings were in fact instituted within the time (if any) limited by law for the institution thereof. (3) Where an alteration of a charge is made under subsection (1) and there is a variance between the charge and he evidence as described in subsection (2), the court shall, if it is of the opinion that the accused has been thereby misled or deceived, adjourn the trial for such period as may be reasonably necessary. " Record of proceedings shows that on 29th May, 2009 when the prosecution amended the Charge Sheet, the court called upon the Appellant to plead afresh to the amended charges in compliance with Section 214 (i) above. At the point he pleaded to the fresh charges, he had the right to object to the amendment or request for http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 6/8