<p class="ql-align-center">JUDGMENT OF THE COURT</p><p>ETM was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to <em>Section 8 (1)</em> and <em>(2)</em> of the <em>Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006</em>. The information is that on 10^th February, 2008, in Murang’a District within the then Central Province, the appellant intentionally and unlawfully had carnal knowledge of PM a girl 5 years old. He faced an alternative count of indecent act with a child contrary to <em>Section 11(1)</em> of the <em>Sexual Offences Act</em>. He pleaded not guilty and was tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for defilement. His appeal to the High Court against conviction for the offence of defilement was dismissed prompting a second appeal to this Court.</p><p>In his home-made memorandum, the appellant cites three grounds of appeal as follows:</p><p><em>That the High Court erred in law while upholding conviction and relying on the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 whose credibility remained doubtful and in contravention of Section 163 (1) of the Evidence Act.</em></p><p><em>That the learned Judge erred in la…</em></p>