[10] The crown responded by referring to the record of proceedings from the trial Court page 2 thereof, where the facts outlined showed that the mother of the child was going to say the complainant was five years old. On the question of not having subjected the accused to some compulsory testing the record show the handing in of an envelope with a report from the doctor about accused HIV status from 2008 to date of the hearing of the matter. [11] The accused may have imbibed in intoxicating beverages when he committed the offence, but his moral blameworthiness would not affect what he did. The offence still remains a sexual offence on a 5 year old. [12] When the facts of what happened were narrated in Court the accused did not say he could not remember what happened. Which means as he was doing the act drunk as might have been, he was aware of what he was going. Also looking at the manner he conducted himself in the commission of the offence, realizing that his wife was staggering and falling several times, he did not try to assist her but hurried home with the child where he raped her. [13] In offences similar to the present the Courts have to demonstrate their displeasure through sentences imposed. The crown has cited