(Being an appeal from the Judgment of the Honourable Resident Magistrate Court, Hon. R. Amwawi [RM], in Criminal Case No. E030 of 2025 dated 16 th December 2025 at Kaloleni Law Courts)
A. Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by Emmanuel Mwangala Charo (hereinafter the "Appellant") challenging his conviction and sentence handed down by the Hon. G. Mokuo at the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kaloleni in Criminal Case No. E030 of 2025 on 14.12.2025.
2. The Appellant was charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, with an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.
3. Upon full trial, the Appellant was convicted under the main count of defilement and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment.
B. Background
4. The particulars before the trial court were that on the 29th day of March 2025, in Jibana Location, Kaloleni Sub-County in Kilifi County, the Appellant intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the genital organs of C.M., a child aged 16 years, as stated in initial records / 15 years, as verified by birth certificate.
5. Arraigned before the trial court, the Appellant pleaded not guilty, prompting the prosecution to tender the evidence of four (4) witnesses to establish its case.
6. Following the close of the prosecution's case, the Appellant was placed on his defence pursuant to Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where he elected to give unsworn evidence.
7. The trial court evaluated the evidence, found the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the Appellant, and sentenced him to twenty (20) years imprisonment. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
C. Grounds of Appeal
8. The Appellant originally and via his amended filings raised three primary grounds of appeal, canvassed as four grounds in submissions, namely:
i) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate that the burden of proof was not met, that identification and penetration were not established beyond doubt, and that the failure of the prosecution to order a DNA test pursuant to Section 36(1) of the Sexual Offences Act created a fatal lacuna.
ii) the entire case was marred by irreconcilable contradictions and discrepancies (specifically regarding the medical gestation period vs. the complainant's timeline) which rendered the conviction unsafe.
iii) That the trial court failed to properly consider and give due weight to his defence evidence and unsworn statement.
D. Submissions by Parties
The Appellant’s Submissions
9. The Appellant argued in person from Malindi G.K. Prison that the prosecution's investigation was shoddy and failed to meet the threshold of Sections 107(1), 108, and 109 of the Evidence Act.
10. He heavily relied on the failure to conduct a DNA test to scientifically link him to the victim or the resultant pregnancy, citing authorities such as Joseph Kinyua Nyaga v. Republic (KCA No. 42 of 2016) and Rep v. Dener Kishan Pandya .
11. He pointed out discrepancies between the complainant's testimony regarding the timeline of intimacy and the clinical findings of the medical doctor (PW4) regarding the gestational age/weeks of pregnancy.
12. He contended that his defence was summarily dismissed and prayed that the conviction be quashed, the sentence set aside, and he be set at liberty.
The Respondent’s Submissions
13. The Respondent, through Ms. Ngina Mutua, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the appeal in its entirety.
14. Relying on the duty of the first appellate court as set out in Okeno v. Republic [1977] EA 32 and Mark Oiruri Mose v. Republic [2013] eKLR, the Respondent submitted that the trial court's evaluation of evidence was sound.
15. On DNA evidence, the Respondent cited HWN v. Republic [2023] KECA 295 and Robert Mutungi Muumbi v. Republic [2015] eKLR to reinforce that Section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act is not couched in mandatory terms and that sexual offences are proved by cogent direct and medical evidence, not exclusively by DNA.
16. The Respondent maintained that all ingredients of defilement—age (proven via birth certificate P. Exhibit 1 as 15 years), penetration (proven by PW2 and corroborated by medical records P. Exhibits 2–5), and identity (established via close recognition of a neighbour/boyfriend)—were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Finally, citing Richard Munene v. Republic [2018] eKLR and May v. Republic [1981] KLR 129, the Respondent urged that minor discrepancies do not vitiate a solid case and that the unsworn defence was properly weighed and found wanting.
E. Summary of Evidence Adduced Before the Lower Court
A review of the lower court record reveals testimony from four prosecution witnesses:
18. PW1: Produced formal administrative records/documents.
19. PW2 (The Complainant/Victim): Testified that the Appellant, who was her neighbour and known to her as her boyfriend, called her to the bush on multiple occasions (including 28.6.2025) where he unlawfully removed her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. She subsequently discovered she was pregnant.
20. PW3: Assisted in laying out the procedural steps of the complaint.
21. PW4 (Dr. M. Chigulu): Examined the complainant at Malindi / Mariakani Sub-County Hospital on 18.7.2025, confirmed she was pregnant, and produced the P3 Form, treatment notes, laboratory results, and obstetric ultrasound scan report (P. Exhibits 2 to 5).
The Defence:
22. The Appellant elected to give unsworn statement under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, denying the charge.
F. Issues for Determination
23. From the grounds of appeal and the rival submissions, the following issues crystalize for our determination:
i) Whether the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of defilement, age, penetration, and identification of perpetrator, beyond reasonable doubt.
ii) Whether the absence of a DNA test was fatal to the prosecution's case.
iii) Whether there were fatal inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence capable of overturning the conviction and Whether the trial court properly evaluated the Appellant's defence.
G. Legal Analysis
24. As the first appellate court, we are guided by the binding principles in Okeno v. Republic [1977] EA 32 . We have independently scrutinized and evaluated the entire record of the lower court while making due allowance for the trial magistrate's advantage in observing the witnesses' demeanor.
i) Whether the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of defilement, age, penetration, and identification of perpetrator, beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Under Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, a conviction for defilement requires concurrent proof of three core elements: (i) the age of the victim as a minor, (ii) an act of penetration, and (iii) positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator.
Age:
26. The prosecution produced a Birth Certificate (P. Exhibit 1), conclusively proving the victim was a minor aged 15 years old at the material time, squarely placing the matter within the penal ambit of Section 8(3) of the Act.
Penetration:
27. The complainant (PW2) gave direct, graphic, and consistent testimony of penile-vaginal insertion by the Appellant. Her account was corroborated medically by PW4, Dr. M. Chigulu, alongside the clinical P3 form and scan reports (P. Exhibits 2–5).
Identification:
28. The victim testified that she knew the Appellant well as her neighbor and boyfriend ("Emmanuel Mwangala"). As affirmed in Anjononi & Others v. Republic [1980] KLR 59, recognition of an assailant known to a witness is far more reliable than identification of a stranger. There was zero room for mistaken identity.
ii) Whether the absence of a DNA test was fatal to the prosecution's case.
29. The Appellant places heavy reliance on the absence of DNA profiling.
30. We agree with the Respondent’s submission and the holding of the Court of Appeal in HWN v. Republic [2023] KECA 295 and Robert Mutungi Muumbi v. Republic [2015] eKLR that Section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act is not couched in mandatory terms to the extent of invalidating direct, cogent eyewitness and medical testimony.
31. DNA is an auxiliary scientific tool; where direct recognition and medical verification of penetration are robust and unimpeached, the absence of DNA does not create a fatal vacuum.
iii) Whether there were fatal inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence capable of overturning the conviction.
32. We have examined the alleged discrepancies regarding gestational timelines. Minor variances in medical estimation versus precise dates do not amount to fundamental contradictions capable of destroying a cohesive prosecution case ( Richard Munene v. Republic [2018] eKLR; Erick Onyango Ondeng’ v. Republic [2014] eKLR).
33. Further, the trial magistrate correctly evaluated the Appellant’s unsworn statement under Section 211 of the CPC, finding it devoid of persuasive force when weighed against the overwhelming, direct, and corroborative evidence tendered by the prosecution ( May v. Republic [1981] KLR 129).
34. The conviction was safe, sound, and anchored on proper legal thresholds.
8. Disposition and Final Orders
35. Having re-evaluated the evidence and considered the respective submissions in this appeal, we find that the appeal lacks merit in its entirety.
36. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby issued:
a) The appeal against conviction is hereby dismissed.
b) The conviction entered on 16 th December 2025 in Kaloleni Principal Magistrates’ Criminal Case No. E030 of 2025 is hereby affirmed.
c) The sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment imposed upon the Appellant is upheld.
37. Right of Appeal within 14 days from today.
38. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026.
C.AKAIGWA
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
A. Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by Emmanuel Mwangala Charo (hereinafter the "Appellant") challenging his conviction and sentence handed down by the Hon. G. Mokuo at the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kaloleni in Criminal Case No. E030 of 2025 on 14.12.2025.
2. The Appellant was charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, with an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.
3. Upon full trial, the Appellant was convicted under the main count of defilement and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment.
B. Background
4. The particulars before the trial court were that on the 29th day of March 2025, in Jibana Location, Kaloleni Sub-County in Kilifi County, the Appellant intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the genital organs of C.M., a child aged 16 years, as stated in initial records / 15 years, as verified by birth certificate.
5. Arraigned before the trial court, the Appellant pleaded not guilty, prompting the prosecution to tender the evidence of four (4) witnesses to establish its case.
6. Following the close of the prosecution's case, the Appellant was placed on his defence pursuant to Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where he elected to give unsworn evidence.
7. The trial court evaluated the evidence, found the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the Appellant, and sentenced him to twenty (20) years imprisonment. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
C. Grounds of Appeal
8. The Appellant originally and via his amended filings raised three primary grounds of appeal, canvassed as four grounds in submissions, namely:
i) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate that the burden of proof was not met, that identification and penetration were not established beyond doubt, and that the failure of the prosecution to order a DNA test pursuant to Section 36(1) of the Sexual Offences Act created a fatal lacuna.
ii) the entire case was marred by irreconcilable contradictions and discrepancies (specifically regarding the medical gestation period vs. the complainant's timeline) which rendered the conviction unsafe.
iii) That the trial court failed to properly consider and give due weight to his defence evidence and unsworn statement.
D. Submissions by Parties
The Appellant’s Submissions
9. The Appellant argued in person from Malindi G.K. Prison that the prosecution's investigation was shoddy and failed to meet the threshold of Sections 107(1), 108, and 109 of the Evidence Act.
10. He heavily relied on the failure to conduct a DNA test to scientifically link him to the victim or the resultant pregnancy, citing authorities such as Joseph Kinyua Nyaga v. Republic (KCA No. 42 of 2016) and Rep v. Dener Kishan Pandya .
11. He pointed out discrepancies between the complainant's testimony regarding the timeline of intimacy and the clinical findings of the medical doctor (PW4) regarding the gestational age/weeks of pregnancy.
12. He contended that his defence was summarily dismissed and prayed that the conviction be quashed, the sentence set aside, and he be set at liberty.
The Respondent’s Submissions
13. The Respondent, through Ms. Ngina Mutua, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the appeal in its entirety.
14. Relying on the duty of the first appellate court as set out in Okeno v. Republic [1977] EA 32 and Mark Oiruri Mose v. Republic [2013] eKLR, the Respondent submitted that the trial court's evaluation of evidence was sound.
15. On DNA evidence, the Respondent cited HWN v. Republic [2023] KECA 295 and Robert Mutungi Muumbi v. Republic [2015] eKLR to reinforce that Section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act is not couched in mandatory terms and that sexual offences are proved by cogent direct and medical evidence, not exclusively by DNA.
16. The Respondent maintained that all ingredients of defilement—age (proven via birth certificate P. Exhibit 1 as 15 years), penetration (proven by PW2 and corroborated by medical records P. Exhibits 2–5), and identity (established via close recognition of a neighbour/boyfriend)—were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Finally, citing Richard Munene v. Republic [2018] eKLR and May v. Republic [1981] KLR 129, the Respondent urged that minor discrepancies do not vitiate a solid case and that the unsworn defence was properly weighed and found wanting.
E. Summary of Evidence Adduced Before the Lower Court
A review of the lower court record reveals testimony from four prosecution witnesses:
18. PW1: Produced formal administrative records/documents.
19. PW2 (The Complainant/Victim): Testified that the Appellant, who was her neighbour and known to her as her boyfriend, called her to the bush on multiple occasions (including 28.6.2025) where he unlawfully removed her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. She subsequently discovered she was pregnant.
20. PW3: Assisted in laying out the procedural steps of the complaint.
21. PW4 (Dr. M. Chigulu): Examined the complainant at Malindi / Mariakani Sub-County Hospital on 18.7.2025, confirmed she was pregnant, and produced the P3 Form, treatment notes, laboratory results, and obstetric ultrasound scan report (P. Exhibits 2 to 5).
The Defence:
22. The Appellant elected to give unsworn statement under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, denying the charge.
F. Issues for Determination
23. From the grounds of appeal and the rival submissions, the following issues crystalize for our determination:
i) Whether the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of defilement, age, penetration, and identification of perpetrator, beyond reasonable doubt.
ii) Whether the absence of a DNA test was fatal to the prosecution's case.
iii) Whether there were fatal inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence capable of overturning the conviction and Whether the trial court properly evaluated the Appellant's defence.
G. Legal Analysis
24. As the first appellate court, we are guided by the binding principles in Okeno v. Republic [1977] EA 32 . We have independently scrutinized and evaluated the entire record of the lower court while making due allowance for the trial magistrate's advantage in observing the witnesses' demeanor.
i) Whether the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of defilement, age, penetration, and identification of perpetrator, beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Under Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, a conviction for defilement requires concurrent proof of three core elements: (i) the age of the victim as a minor, (ii) an act of penetration, and (iii) positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator.
Age:
26. The prosecution produced a Birth Certificate (P. Exhibit 1), conclusively proving the victim was a minor aged 15 years old at the material time, squarely placing the matter within the penal ambit of Section 8(3) of the Act.
Penetration:
27. The complainant (PW2) gave direct, graphic, and consistent testimony of penile-vaginal insertion by the Appellant. Her account was corroborated medically by PW4, Dr. M. Chigulu, alongside the clinical P3 form and scan reports (P. Exhibits 2–5).
Identification:
28. The victim testified that she knew the Appellant well as her neighbor and boyfriend ("Emmanuel Mwangala"). As affirmed in Anjononi & Others v. Republic [1980] KLR 59, recognition of an assailant known to a witness is far more reliable than identification of a stranger. There was zero room for mistaken identity.
ii) Whether the absence of a DNA test was fatal to the prosecution's case.
29. The Appellant places heavy reliance on the absence of DNA profiling.
30. We agree with the Respondent’s submission and the holding of the Court of Appeal in HWN v. Republic [2023] KECA 295 and Robert Mutungi Muumbi v. Republic [2015] eKLR that Section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act is not couched in mandatory terms to the extent of invalidating direct, cogent eyewitness and medical testimony.
31. DNA is an auxiliary scientific tool; where direct recognition and medical verification of penetration are robust and unimpeached, the absence of DNA does not create a fatal vacuum.
iii) Whether there were fatal inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence capable of overturning the conviction.
32. We have examined the alleged discrepancies regarding gestational timelines. Minor variances in medical estimation versus precise dates do not amount to fundamental contradictions capable of destroying a cohesive prosecution case ( Richard Munene v. Republic [2018] eKLR; Erick Onyango Ondeng’ v. Republic [2014] eKLR).
33. Further, the trial magistrate correctly evaluated the Appellant’s unsworn statement under Section 211 of the CPC, finding it devoid of persuasive force when weighed against the overwhelming, direct, and corroborative evidence tendered by the prosecution ( May v. Republic [1981] KLR 129).
34. The conviction was safe, sound, and anchored on proper legal thresholds.
8. Disposition and Final Orders
35. Having re-evaluated the evidence and considered the respective submissions in this appeal, we find that the appeal lacks merit in its entirety.
36. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby issued:
a) The appeal against conviction is hereby dismissed.
b) The conviction entered on 16 th December 2025 in Kaloleni Principal Magistrates’ Criminal Case No. E030 of 2025 is hereby affirmed.
c) The sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment imposed upon the Appellant is upheld.
37. Right of Appeal within 14 days from today.
38. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026.
C.AKAIGWA
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2