Sammy Muriu had sought reprieve from a conviction and sentence handed down by the Meru High Court in 2018, which found him guilty of defilement under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act.
The offence took place between May 19 and 20, 2013, when Muriu was accused of luring a teenage girl, then a stranger to him, into his home under false pretences and sexually assaulting her.
The girl, referred to in court as MK, had been sent to the shop by her mother at around 6 pm.
She testified that she encountered Muriu, who suggested she spend the night at his sister’s house due to the late hour.
Upon arriving, they found the sister absent.
Muriu then took her to his own home, where he forcibly undressed her and defiled her.
She remained in the house overnight and was not released until the evening of the following day.
The traumatised girl reported the incident immediately to her mother, who in turn notified the area chief and police.
MK then led the officers to Muriu’s home, where he was arrested.
It was at this point that she learned his name.
Medical evidence confirmed the teenager had been defiled.
A clinical officer who examined her testified that her hymen was absent.
Although there were no visible injuries or discharge, the officer concluded that sexual penetration had occurred.
The court also accepted the girl’s immunisation card, which showed she was born on November 14, 1998, confirming she was 15 at the time.
Her mother corroborated this testimony.
Muriu, however, denied all charges.
In his defence, he claimed he was framed and that he was misidentified.
He argued no identification parade had been held and that key witnesses had not been called.
He also contested the sufficiency of medical evidence.
Despite these claims, both the trial court and the first appellate court found the girl’s testimony consistent, credible and unshaken.
“There is nothing to make me doubt this witness,” the trial magistrate noted during the original trial.
The judge added that MK “positively recognised him after spending long hours in his company.”
In his second and final appeal, Muriu argued that the 20-year sentence was excessive and unconstitutional, claiming it denied the court discretion.
But the three-judge bench, comprising Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Jamila Mohammed and Luka Kimaru, rejected his arguments.
The Court of Appeal found no fault with the lower courts’ decisions and ruled that all three legal elements, age, penetration and identification, had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
They noted that MK spent over 24 hours with Muriu and that her ability to identify him was clear and credible.
The judges also stated that an identification parade was unnecessary given the duration of the encounter and the subsequent arrest led by the complainant.
Citing Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years for defilement of a child aged between 12 and 15, the court affirmed the legality of the sentence.
The judges referenced the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which upheld mandatory minimum sentences as lawful unless overturned by the apex court.
“This being a second appeal, severity of sentence becomes a question of fact which is, by dint of section 361(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, outside our remit,” the judgment stated.
The judges also dismissed the defence of mistaken identity during the hearing. From the record, the man answered to the name Sammy Muriu whenever he was called.
The judgment ruled that the question of mistaken identity was therefore an afterthought.
In dismissing the appeal, the judges ruled, “We find that this appeal is devoid of merit and we dismiss it in its entirety”.
