Brian Kipkemoi Koech v Republic [2013] eKLR and did not know why he was arrested. On cross examination he denied that his name is Koech. I have noted the Appellant introduced himself as "Brian Kipkemoi Mamet". On cross examination the prosecution asked him for his National Identity Card but the court did not record what name the Identity Card read. But in the Judgment the trial court noted that the Identity Card read "Mamit Brian Kipkemoi". But it also noted that the Appellant gave his name to the police and the doctor who treated him as Brian Kipkemoi Koech. The court therefore rightfully disregarded that discrepancy. PW6 Felix Boiywo a clinical officer at Eldama Ravine District Hospital on the other hand examined and treated the Appellant. He produced the treatment chit in this regard as P. Exhibit 4. At the time PW6 testified, the Appellant did not raise any objection to the production of the treatment chit. He neither denied that he was treated. Therefore, although the trial Magistrate did not give regard to his defence in the Judgment, the same is not corroborated by the Appellant's submission to the effect that he was never taken to a hospital for treatment. Finally, with regard to the fifth ground of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the trial court erred in convicting him based on a Judgment that did not state the section of law under which he was convicted as provided by section 169 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said section of the law provides as follows: "In the case of a conviction, the Judgment shall specify the offence of which, and the section of the Penal Code or other law under which, the accused person is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced." The trial Magistrate made final verdict in the following words:"I therefore find the accused guilty of the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act and proceed to convict under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code accordingly. I will acquit him on count II since the same was not proved under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code." The foregoing demonstrates that the trial court fully complied with the provisions of S. 169 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It stated the offence of which Appellant was convicted as that of "defilement under S. 8 (4) of Sexual Offences Act" and convicted him under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also stated the punishment handed to the Appellant as "a jail term of 10 years". As for the sentence, under Section 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act:"A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years." The trial Magistrate therefore prescribed a penalty that was not provided by the law. Section 8 (4) of Sexual Offences Act is framed in mandatory terms such that if an accused is convicted, no less than fifteen (15) years of jail term should be handed. This court has powers to correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, if I were to find that the prosecution proved its case beyond all doubts, I would correct the illegality accordingly. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 5/6