Collins Akala Lusayi v Republic [2013] eKLR 4. After the testimony of the three witnesses, the appellant changed his mind again. He informed the court that he now wished to plead guilty. The charge was read over again in Kiswahili. He pleaded guilty. The prosecutor relied on the facts as pleaded by PW1, the complainant. The accused confirmed those facts were true. The accused was then convicted on his own plea of guilty. 5. I find that the appellant’s plea of guilty was unequivocal. The appellant submitted that he was not warned of the consequences of pleading guilty. From the lengthy history of the trial, that allegation is without foundation. His further submission that the plea was involuntary is clearly an afterthought. It follows that the argument that the evidence was insufficient, or that police investigations were incomplete or that certain witnesses were not called is all water under the bridge. It is to turn logic onto its head for the appellant to now state that his defence was not considered by the trial court. The appellant opted to concede unequivocally to the charge after hearing the clear testimony of three witnesses. 6. One ground put forth by the appellant is that the charge was defective. In the appellant’s view, he should have been charged with an offence against the order of nature under section 162 of the Penal Code. That is a misreading of the Sexual Offences Act. Section 8 of the sexual offences Act deals with defilement ofany child. The sex does not truly matter. A child under the Act has the meaning ascribed to it by the Children Act, which means, one below 18 years. The charge sheet contains the details of the offence, the penal section, the particulars, the date of offence and the names of the appellant and complainant. I have not found anything capable of impeaching the charge sheet. 7. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The prosecution confirmed that theappellant was a first offender. The appellant did not offer any mitigation to the trial Court. He is trying to reopen the matter on appeal. It is a little wee late. Furthermore, under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, defilement of a child below eleven years attracts imprisonment for life. The complainant was nine years. He was in class one. This is a grave offence perpetrated against a defenceless child. The complainant is a vulnerable person as defined in section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act. He will carry the scars for life. It is thus fitting that the appellant spends the rest of his life in jail. In the end I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 25thday of October 2013 G.K. KIMONDO JUDGE Judgment read in open court in the presence of Mr…………………………………………………for the appellant. Mr……………………………….…………..….…for the State. Mr. P. Ekitela, Court Clerk. While the design, structure and metadata of the Case Search database are licensed by Kenya Law under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, the texts of the judicial opinions contained in it are in the public domain and are free from any copyright restrictions. Read our Privacy Policy | Disclaimer http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/2 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)