The victim was 12 and she was made p regna nt. The younger the victim the less lenien t will the court be towards the offender. In my view, wh ere the victim is less than 12 ye ars, a sentence of 12 years and o ver will not be shocking. The Younger the victim the more punishm ent one should face. Tha t the victim was left with a pregnancy is an aggravating factor because th e pregnancy obviously disturbed the life of the victim p hysically and psychologic ally. The co urt has to consider in favour of the offe nder the fact that he was a first offender. Again, it does not matter how grave the offence is, every first offender must benefit fo r being a first offender unless in rare situations I cannot th ink o f now. At 33 I c annot say that Appellant was a youthfu l offender, but it must be ac cepted that youthfulness is a ba nd from 18 to 35 years of age. Men especially grow slowly mentally and a t 35 they are at their prime experimenting with life. The App ellant has c ited some cases such as Rep -v- Bamusi Mkwapatira Confirmation Case No. 588 of 2008 whe re a sentence of l 0 years IH L was reduced to 8 years IHL fo r d efiling a 12 year old girl on the ground that the accused was a first o ffe nder. I am not sure whether preg nancy occurred in this case and t he age of the accused is not known . In 2003 Justice Chim asula enhanced a sentence of 5 years to 8 years IHL for defiling a l 0 yea r old g irl in Rep -v- Godfrey Ndamera Confirmation case No . 31 4 200 l. In Rep -vGibson Kaligoza Confirmation Case No. 1323 of 2005 the accused person plead ed guilty to defiling a 12 year old g irl. He was a first offender and was sentenced to 5 years IHL which was enhanced to 7 years. After weighing all the circumstances, incl udin g the issue of pregnancy, b eing a first offender young although o lder, plea of CRIMINAL DIVISION •