Arusha. Acram Ashirafu, who appealed against a 30-year prison sentence for sodomising a 10-year-old child, has ended up with a harsher punishment after the High Court’s Bukoba Sub-Registry dismissed his appeal and increased the sentence to life imprisonment.
Mr Ashirafu, who was 19 and a secondary school student when the offence was committed, had challenged a Bukoba District Court judgment that convicted him of sodomising the child and sentenced him to 30 years in prison.
The High Court, however, ruled that the sentence imposed by the lower court was unlawful because the law prescribes life imprisonment for the offence where the victim is under 18.
The ruling was delivered on August 7, 2026, by Judge Lilian Itemba in Criminal Appeal No. 8155 of 2026, filed by Mr Ashirafu against the Republic.
Judge Itemba said the appellant was not eligible for a 30-year sentence because the victim was 10 years old.
Under Section 154(2) of the Penal Code, a person convicted of the offence involving a child under 18 must be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Grounds of appeal
According to the prosecution case, between January and September 2025, in Kashai, Bukoba Municipality, Mr Ashirafu, took the child to his home on different occasions and sodomised him while threatening him not to disclose what had happened.
After being sentenced to 30 years, Mr Ashirafu filed an appeal on nine grounds, arguing, among other things, that the evidence used to convict him was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
He also challenged the child’s evidence, medical evidence and ythe manner in which the District Court assessed his defence.
He further argued that the charge sheet was defective because it did not specify the exact date of the offence.
Court’s decision
In her ruling, Judge Itemba said the High Court had re-evaluated the evidence presented before the District Court and found no basis to overturn the conviction.
She said the child had given detailed evidence about the incident and identified Mr Ashirafu because he already knew him before the offence.
The court also considered medical evidence from a doctor and a PF3 form, which indicated laxity of the child’s anal muscles, a condition the court said was consistent with penetration by a blunt object.
Judge Itemba said the medical evidence supported the child’s account that the act had occurred, although it could not, on its own, identify the perpetrator.
The court also found that even if Mr Ashirafu’s claim that he had been forced to confess through police threats was disregarded, there was sufficient other evidence to prove the prosecution case.
Judge Itemba noted that the District Court had not thoroughly assessed Mr Ashirafu’s defence evidence.
However, she said the tomission did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the High Court, as the first appellate court, had a duty to re-examine the evidence and make its own assessment.
In his defence, Mr Ashirafu claimed that he had been a boarding student during the period in question and that he was arrested on September 5, 2025, while at a secondary school.
Judge Itemba said the claim was not supported by evidence from the school.
“I have weighed the defence against the prosecution evidence. The appellant’s claim that he was a boarding student from January to September 2025 was not supported by any evidence from the school, such as attendance records, the school register or testimony from any school official,” she said.
On his claim that he had been forced to confess, the judge said it remained a mere allegation.
“If he had indeed been threatened into confessing against his will, nothing prevented him from raising the complaint at the earliest opportunity before the court,” she said.
The judge said that even if the confession were disregarded, the prosecution case did not depend solely on it but mainly on the child’s evidence and medical evidence.
Having upheld the conviction, the High Court then considered the legality of the 30-year sentence imposed by the District Court.
The State Attorney had earlier told the court that the sentence was unlawful because the victim was under 18 and Section 154(2) of the Penal Code prescribes life imprisonment as the mandatory sentence.
Judge Itemba agreed, saying that although the District Court had established that the victim was 10 years old, it erred by imposing a 30-year sentence.
The High Court therefore set aside the sentence and substituted it with life imprisonment.
“Under Section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), an appellate court has the power to alter an unlawful sentence. Therefore, the sentence for the offence of sodomy contrary to Section 154(1)(a) and (2) of the Penal Code was found to have no legal basis and is hereby set aside,” Judge Itemba ruled.
“The 30-year prison sentence imposed by the lower court, being contrary to Section 154(2) of the Penal Code, is set aside and, pursuant to that section, Acram is sentenced to life imprisonment,” she concluded.
