Counsel for the Appellant further surmises that the trial judge was influenced in sentencing by the wrong interpretation given by Counsel for the Respondent to the phrase "the bread winner of his family" as indicating that the Appellant was responsible for a nuclear family, and that inspite of that he hunted little children. Whether this "misinterpretation" actually played on the trial judge's mind in sentencing is speculative and thus untenable. I IIIII! I lfl If For all the above reasons, Counsel for the Appellant urges this court "to find that the lower court did not exercise its discretion properly, allow the Appeal in its entirety, [even though the appeal is solely against sentence] set aside the judgment of the lower court on sentence and reduce the sentence of life imprisonment ,to 7 years or any reasonable I '1 •1 l!l I '11 1h length ......" 1 •• 11, ' 11 lllh . ..•:illllllnnu,ln, '''' I II I . From the Record it is evident that the only arguments proffered by Counsel for the Appellant in the lower court against th•e sen ence imposed r late solely to the fact that the Appellant was a first offender, a 1 cbnsideration which, ought to have attracted a lesser • h sentence, she argued. Other I m.itigating factors before the lower court are those I i contained in the plea in mitigation made at the trial court. 111 '1 • • , 1j' . I I On the other h an!· d:ounsel for the Respondent argued extensively in the lower court and • II" I ' this Court f.or• he affirmatio r11otthe s entence of the trial court and has listed factors which .,,e'. 11,' w· ought o b '' " co sidered as arranting the imposition of the maximum sentence and 1 11 . . . . ·lriJh . t 11 ,til 11 . consequently the n onl-1nterfere.nce w1th the tnal JUdge's d1scret1onary sentence. '•Itllhl lllll·iJ' I I J, ·I ,· • 9gree with CoUh1Sel's sJission that the MUSA SARR case, decided by this Court on lih 11. . '''lllh II IIII. 1 Juqeh2014, is disti guishable from the instant case for in that case the victim was above Ih •1111 eighteen years ·aod the Appellant had been convicted on his guilty plea. In that case the 1 1 11 I' IIIII I !' sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to 15 years pursuant to powers vested under 1 bhI 29(2) of the Criminal Code. Se ti .In this case, Counsel for the Respondent urges this court to follow its decisions in LAMIN_ KRUBALLY V. THE STATE and the recently decided - =- case of OMAR KITAN V THE STATE, Elelivered on 29th April, 2005. SC NO. 2/20i2- NFA.'t.Ar?A SAIDYKHAN VS THESTATE- 7TH MAY 2015 Page...j14