Nyeri farmhand's jail sentence upheld in sodomy case

Nyeri resident judge Jairus Ngaah, who upheld a 10-year jail term imposed on a farmhand who attempted to sodomise a 10-year-old boy in Othaya. PHOTO | JOSEPH WANGUI | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • A clinical officer, Ian Ngumo Warutere, testified that he examined the boy - who complained of having been sodomized - but did not find any injuries.
  • He however had a cut wound on his leg.
  • Mr Thuita contested that he was wrongly convicted saying the magistrate rejected his defence and erred in law by failing to consider there was no eyewitness.

A farmhand will serve 10 years in jail for committing an indecent act and attempting to sodomise a 10-year-old boy in Othaya, Nyeri County.

Joseph Muchiri Thuita, who is accused of committing the offence on June 1, 2015, told magistrate Ben Ekhubi that he was framed by the boy’s grandmother after he rejected her sexual advances.

Mr Thuita also told the court that he was not at the homestead on the date the offence was allegedly committed, saying he had travelled and returned on June 3.

The boy said he had gone to borrow a hammer from his grandmother to fix a chicken structure when the convict sexually assaulted him.

The grandmother had left for the shop and on returning found the boy crying. He told her what had happened and that he got injured while escaping from the convict’s grip.

She reported the matter to police and also took the boy to hospital.

A clinical officer, Ian Ngumo Warutere, testified that he examined the boy, who complained of having been sodomised, but did not find any injuries.

He, however, had a cut wound in his leg.

Thuita’s defence about sexual advances from the boy's grandmother was dismissed by the court as an afterthought since he did not raise it during cross-examination and there was no evidence that the woman sought such favours.

His efforts to appeal the sentence and conviction failed after High Court Judge Jairus Ngaah dismissed his appeal.

Thuita contested that he was wrongly convicted, saying the magistrate rejected his defence and erred in law by failing to consider there was no eyewitness.

“The evidence was so consistent. There was no basis whatsoever to doubt that he had committed an indecent act with the complainant,” noted the judge.

The court also noted that he did not prove that he was not at the homestead as he had claimed, thus his argument was not viable.