On the other hand Counsel for the Respondent contended in his Briefs before the lower court and this Court that the fact of the Appellant being a first offender ought to be weighed against other numerous factors warranting the imposition of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These include- "A. That the victim is an Orphan who has been traumatised early in life by the loss of both parents. A child in these circumstances needs special love and care from the society. B. The accused merely took undue advantage of the unfortunate victim to satisfy his libido I c. The victim is grossly under-a ged. D. From the evidence on•'r cor:ctl•which(ti1supported by the testimony of the ' •illhh ' t' I ,•• accused person himself, he had raw and lJnprotected sex with the poor girl • not minding the . possibility of t ransmitting AIDS and other sexually 1I I •• Ill transmitted .iseases to ,the innocent and uninformed girl or the obvious ' I • 1,, possibility of impregnating [sic] and terminating her educational pursuits. II h IIIU ilh IIU 1111 ' .f II i • l J . I• E. ,111JIThe evidence \ll recorqj ;;,howed that after the incident, the victim was 11 I. bleleding." (pp. 121 -122 of the Record). 1 •I lllhJ ''li liJ I II ''! h 1,1.·· IIIII ,tt ,IJ' Counsel for tlie ,Responden( therefore, urged the lower court not to interfere with the trial I I '1111 judge's impositionof a discretionary life sentence "unless it is shown that the exercise of I IIIII suc::,h jdiscretion w s1arbitrary, which is not the contention of the Appellant in this appeal." l,,'lh.. 'tllr •1···:. ,. Having considered all the above factors which Counsel on both sides argued impinge on the' nature of the sentence imposed, the lower court refused the invitation from Counsel for the__ Appellant to hold the trial judge's imposition f the maximum sentence of life imprisonment as "harsh and excessive." SC NtT.2!2012- NFAMARil SAIDYKHAN VS THE STATE- 7TH MAY 2015 Page I 9