Patrick Kiruma Kaniaru v Republic

The Court found the complainant stated she was 7 years old during voir dire and in chief, her mother gave the date of birth, and a birth certificate produced by the investigating officer corroborated both. The evidence remained firm and consistent and was never challenged in cross-examination. A mother, the Court observed, knows her child's age best, so formal age assessment was not required on these facts.

The complainant described the act and the pain she felt; PW3, a child eyewitness, saw the appellant on top of her; the P3 form showed a freshly broken hymen with discharge and gonorrhea infection. The Court reiterated that medical evidence is not the only means of proving a sexual offence, and found the evidence of the two witnesses remained unchallenged throughout the trial.

The appellant was well known to PW2 and PW3 as her uncle, and the attack happened in broad daylight, excluding mistaken identity. PW3 witnessed the incident through the window. The Court distinguished recognition from identification and found overwhelming evidence placing the appellant at the scene.

The Court endorsed the principle that the burden of proving the falsity of an alibi lies on the prosecution, but held that a trial court may take into account the accused's failure to raise the alibi early so it could be investigated. Both courts below weighed the alibi against the prosecution evidence and rightly rejected it, as PW2 and PW3 placed the appellant squarely at the scene.

The Court noted it was aware of jurisprudence from the Court frowning on lack of sentencing discretion in sexual offences. However, on the facts - the victim being the appellant's 7-year-old blood cousin, breach of trust, infection with a sexually transmitted disease, and evidence of prior defilement - the Court found the circumstances aggravated and declined to disturb the life sentence.