Raphel Gikunda v Republic [2013] eKLR
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2011
LESIIT, J
RAPHEL GIKUNDA……………………………………....APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….RESPONDENT.
JUDGEMENT
1. The Appellant was convicted of defilement contrary to section 8(1) and section 8(3) of the Sexual
Offences Act, after pleading guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.
Being aggrieved by the sentence he filed his Petition of Appeal in which he raises three grounds
as follows:
1. That the sentence imposed against me is rather too harsh and excessive and pray for a
reduction of the same.
2. That the entire case for prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubts as
required by the law.
3. That as I cannot recall all what was not proved to the required standard of beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. In his submissions on appeal the Appellant urged that he was not challenging the conviction but
only the sentence. He urged that he had reformed and would like to go back to the society and
build his family. He stated that he loved the complainant and that she got his baby and that she
was with him.
3. The State has opposed this appeal.Ms Mwangi learned State Counsel represented the state in
this appeal. The learned state counsel urged that the offence carries a minimum sentence of 20
years and that Appellant was sentenced to 25 years. Counsel urged that Appellant was not
remorseful even on the date the appeal was heard.
4. I have carefully considered this appeal. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge on the day of
plea. That is proof of remorse. He still stood as on the same footing even when he came for
http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 1/3