Judge warns sex pest 15 year jail term was lenient
The convict appealed against the sentence saying he had reformed while in prison.
What you need to know:
- The convict said he was remorseful for the beastly act committed on the minor seven years ago.
- The judge said the trail court sentenced Njenga to a jail term below the minimum requirement.
The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a man serving 15 years imprisonment for defiling an eight-year-old boy.
Kibera High Court judge Diana Kavedza on Thursday dismissed the appeal by Antony Njenga Kinyanjui, alias Tony, saying the sentence imposed was in fact lenient.
Njenga appealed against the sentence, saying he had reformed while in prison. He also said he was remorseful for the beastly act committed on the minor seven years ago.
“That notwithstanding, the trial court exercised its discretion during sentencing and I see no reason to interfere. In the end, the appeal is found to be lacking in merit and is dismissed in its entirety,” Justice Kavedza said.
The judge said the trail court sentenced Njenga to a jail term below the minimum requirement, which is life imprisonment under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, since the minor was below 11 years.
Justice Kavedza said that during sentencing, the trial court considered the pre-sentence report, Njenga’s mitigation, and the fact that he was a first offender.
“In my view, the sentence imposed was lenient,” she said.
Evidence tabled in court was that Njenga, who was a neighbour at Uthiru Muthua in Nairobi, took in the minor on October 8, 2017 and defiled him throughout the night.
He abandoned the minor in a nearby forest the following morning but before leaving, he threatened the boy with death if he ever dared to speak about the incident.
Terrified and in pain, the boy found his way back home where he found his mother and narrated his ordeal.
With great difficulty, the boy recounted the horrifying events of the night. His parents rushed him to the hospital for examination and later reported the matter to the police.
In defence, Njenga claimed that the accusations were part of a malicious scheme orchestrated by the boy’s parents due to a long-standing land dispute between their families.
He claimed he was not even present in the area at the time of the incident.
And to support his story, he called three witnesses who testified on his behalf, maintaining that he was framed.
The prosecution’s case rested on the consistency of the boy’s testimony, the action taken by his parents, and the corroborating medical evidence, which painted a clear picture of abuse and trauma.
