• However , Counsel for the Appellant has sought to distinguish the case of LAMIN KRUBALLY V THE STATE, in which judgment was delivered by this Court on the 13th 1 November, 2013, in that there was_ a close relationship between the prosecutrix Respondent and the accused/Appellant, who was her step father in loco parentis and repeatedly had sex with her leading to her pregnancy. In such circumstances, which are different from those of this case, Counsel conceded, the sentence of life imprisonment was warranted. Counsel also referred to the OMAR KITAN case,j cited above, as also ' distinguishable from the present case in that the prosecutrix in that case eventually ' •I>' I became pregnant and the sentence of life imprisonment was a'fUrmed by this Cour;t. fW','I'I' •', j t! IW 1 , ! h, 'I, ' While the circumstances of the two cases referred1 to' by, Counsel fothe Appellant are II different from those of the instant case, Ido not thin i·•• II 'I ' 'I h they have any mitigating effect 'I , when considering this case, which, as stated earlier, is •an appeal urging this Court to • interfere with the lower court's exercise of its discretion in declining to vary the sentence imposed by the trial judge in the exij[bse ,9f his discretion. Ido not think sentences in such cases ought to be measured soley on the basis of surrounding circumstances but I also, and to my mind, more importantly on the deleterious effects on the lives of the lilt victims. l ' '11111! ·'11111 11 Illh I d 'lilt' 1JJI' I !1111 After distinguis. i{ig! th'e,N : ;r BALt'(lcase, (referred to earlier) the lower court said at page 'l 1ltj 139 of the· J.c;ord 1 111•1 '11 ",IIn " tht l .l t 11 e msan case, ' ••Jih,. ''II I ltllil• 1 111111 - h i .1s far f rom house brea k'mg or st eaIm ' g [the off ences .1n W••IC '1111 the N)'ABALLY case],,the innocence of the child was taken away from her. . The tl I I question I ask is, what gave the Appellant the right to have sex with a 14 year old and think it is okay? What gave the appellant the right to think he can get away 1 with h avi g rudely taken innocence away. The victim has been scarred for life and '. can never reclaim her innocence again. Therefore, under the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed is justified and is reasonable." ih In -= TheJQwer court found no reason to interfere with the sentence of the trial court. SC NO. 212012- NFAMARA SAIDYKHAN VS THE STATE- 7TH MAY 2015 Pa ge I 15 -