THE Supreme Court has upheld the 40 years imprisonment term slapped on a man for defiling a two year four months old.
Supreme Court judge Elizabeth Muyovwe, Evans Hamaundu and Jones Chinyama said the court was satisfied that the dangers of false implication had been excluded.
Judge Muyovwe said the trial magistrate satisfied himself before convicting Leonard Kabamba that it was he that defiled the child looking at the circumstances of the case.
“We hold the view that our finding would have been different had the magistrate not satisfied himself that it was the appellant who defiled the child,” she said.
Judge Muyovwe said: “All in all, we find that there was overwhelming evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellant and we uphold the judgement of the trial magistrate. This appeal is hereby dismissed.”
Kabamba was convicted of defiling the victim by the magistrate who committee him to the High Court where he was sentenced to 40 years.
However, Kabamba appealed but the Supreme dismissed his case and upheld the 40 years jail term.
According to the record, the girl on the material day was playing with two other children who were younger than her at Kabamba’s house.
The girl’s parents and Kabamba had been neighbours for 25 years.
It was heard that the children normally played together from Kabamba’s house and on that day, the girl’s mother called her so that she could bath her and she noticed that she came from Kabamba’s house.
The girl’s mother had told the court that her daughter cried when she bathed her but later she went to continue playing until around 17:00 when she called her home.
When the mother bathed the girl for the second time around 17:00 hours, she cried out in pain while mentioning Kabamba’s name and at that point, she told her that the accused hurt her on her private part.
The mother and an aunt examined her and eventually she was examined by medical personnel who confirmed that the child was defiled.
Kabamba was arrested for defiled but denied the charge, explaining that on the mater day, he left home to have a haircut and returned home but that around 12:00 hours, he left for town.
He denied defiling the child and appealed against his conviction.
He argued that the trial court erred in law and in fact in convicting him in the absence of corroborative evidence or evidence of a something more to exclude the danger of false complaint and false implication.
Kabamba had also argued that the trial court erred in law and in fact when it shifted the burden of proof to him thereby, going against laid down principles of criminal law.
But the Supreme Court found that the lower court was on firm ground when it convicted him as there was overwhelming evidence in the case.