JUDGMENT
Samuel Gitau (the appellant) has preferred this second appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence of defilement as affirmed by the 1st appellate court. Our role as the second appellate court was succinctly set out in Karani vs. R [2010] 1 KLR 73 wherein this Court expressed itself as follows: -
“This is a second appeal. By dint of the provisions of section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we are enjoined to consider only matters of law. We cannot interfere with the decision of the superior court on facts unless it is demonstrated that the trial court and the first appellate court considered matters they ought not to have considered or that they failed to consider matters they should have considered or that looking at the evidence as a whole they were plainly wrong in their decision, in which case such omission or commission would be treated as matters of law.”
The prosecution called five (5) witnesses to prove its case. AN (name withheld) (the complainant)…