Brian Kipkemoi Koech v Republic [2013] eKLR of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particularsas may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged. From the onset, the Appellant knew that the charge facing him was one of defilement. Its particulars were clearly spelt out, which included the date of the offence, the place of the offence, the act constituting the offence and the name of the victim. The definition of the offence is given in Section 8 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act as:"A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement." The word "penetration" is the operative word in the above definition which is defined in Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act as:"Means the partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organs of another person." In effect, in a charge of defilement, all the prosecution requires to prove is the "penetration". The mere omission of inclusion of the definition section in the statement of the charge would not render the charge sheet defective. After all, the inclusion of the definition section is not a major component of a charge sheet as outlined under Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, such omission is curable under the provisions to Section 382 ofl the Criminal Procedure Code which reads:"Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless the error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice: Provided that in determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the question whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings." I will combine the 2nd and 3rd grounds of appeal. The Appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He stated that the doctor who examined the complainant gave evidence which he indicated that the complainant was examined long before the offence was committed. He argued that he was convicted on uncorroborated and contradictory evidence. The Clinical Officer who examined the complainant testified as PW1. He is named as one Zadrack Kiplimo from Koibatek District Hospital. His testimony was that he examined the complainant on 30th May, 2009 and that the offence was committed on 29th June, 2009. He also produced the complainant's P3 form as P. Exhibit II. The compiled record of appeal does not contain a copy of the P3 form. What is marked as P. Exhibit 2 in the original lower court record is a treatment chit from Eldama Ravine District Hospital. The same bears the date 29/6/2009. However, I have noted the number 9 on the date is superimposed on number http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 3/6