Hassan Athuman will be serving 20 years in prison after he allegedly defiled his classmate, a 15 years old student (FLH) by coercing her to sleep with him in 2022.

The exact age of Athuman was not stated in court but was regarded as a young male adult well known to FLH and who professed his love to sleep with her.

According to FLH, Athuman was his friend, a neighbor and classmate and that he convinced her to sleep with him.

FLH narrated that she spread a leso on the ground, undressed together and engaged in coitus with Athuman and left at 3 AM. It is not clear where they left to at the wee hours of the morning or it was a typo meant to indicate evening hours.

“When he was done he dressed up and I dressed up. I then picked up my leso

and we sat on the leso. He told me that it was 3.00am we left,” said FLH.

Justice Benjamin Njoroge went ahead to uphold the 20 years sentence handed to Athuman by the then Kwale Principal Magistrate Rita Amwayi.

Justice Njoroge noted that although there was no violence during the incidence, a minor cannot consent to sexual act.

“The victim’s description of the events tends to show an older young man professing love

to her and leading her to have sexual intercourse. The law is clear that a minor cannot consent to a sexual act. It matters not that love language was used to induce the victim to give in,” said Justice Njoroge.

The judge said that the law protects the innocence of a child, be it a boy or a girl from sexual advances and the law recognises that a child can be groomed to sexual acts by people she or he looks up to and trusts.

Justice Njoroge said that FHL was well known to Athuman who ought to have protected

her and not abused her by introducing her to illicit and premature love.

The judge said that uncontroverted evidence is deemed admitted fact in law and dismissed Athuman’s attempt to raise objection to the evidence in his appeal as an afterthought.

During his trial and cross-examination before the magistrate’s court, Athuman did not controvert FLH narrative that they knew each other and that they engaged in coitus.

Athuman did not cross-examine or challenge the witnesses including FLH on the specific fact of penetration.

Further, Athman did not object to the authenticity or production of the documentary evidence including FLH copy of her birth certificate.

However, in his appeal, Athuman told Justice Njoroge, Athuman that the magistrate failed to consider sharp contradictions and gaps in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, rendering Section 124 of the Evidence Act inapplicable.

He said that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act.

In opposing the appeal, the prosecution said that Athuman waived his right to challenge the documents by failing to object at trial.