The appellant was convicted for the offences of causing harm, causing unlawful damage to a Boxers Motor Bike property of one Pewudie Christian contrary to Section 69 and Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29/60 respectively.
He was charged together with one other Kaedabi Nash A2 who remained at large till the end of the matter.
When put before the Jasikan Circuit Court on the 5/04/2023, A2 appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted on count 2, 3, and 5 and sentenced to 5 years IHL.
Before sentence appellant pleaded for leniency due to the fact that he was extremely angry that is why he assaulted complainant whom he had an issue with over two years ago.
The court found his explanation and plea for mercy weird and reprehensible and handed down 5 years IHL sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant now appeals for remission of sentence.
He set out the following as his grounds of Appeal.
a) He is a first time offender.
b) He pleaded guilty simplicita hence did not waste time and resources of the state.
c) He is remorseful and promise not to involve himself in any such conduct if given opportunity of mitigation of sentence.
The republic/respondent argued that the learned trail judge in sentence took mitigation into consideration per the record of appeal.
Counsel stated further that the punishment of the accused appellant would be observed as intended to be punitive considering the extent of injury that the complainant suffered.
Unfortunately, this count has not been furnished with any records, sitting as an appellate court in determination of this appeal to satisfy itself what the extent of injury to complainant was.
As can be gleaned from the facts attached to the record of appeal, Appellant called to remembrance how complainant assaulted him two years ago and caused damage to his motor bike.
Upon meeting him two long years later he decided to retaliate.
He also assaulted complainant with the assistance of A2. He dealt a blow to his jaw and used metal bar to damage complainant’s motor bike in return.
Though the extent of injury and medical bills and photographs have not been put before the court, I believe the trial Circuit Judge had a first-hand detail of these hence his determination that appellants conduct was reprehensible.
The combine effect of Section 69 and 172 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29 and Section 296 of Act 30 in the instant case is that the learned trial Judge was obliged to give a sentence not exceeding 10 y
