Malindi: Madrassa teacher handed 20-year jail term for drugging, sodomising minor

A 25-year-old madrassa teacher in Malindi, Kilifi County has been handed a 20-year prison sentence for sodomising a 15-year-old student.

Yusuf Charo Dole was convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8[1] as read with section 8[3] of the sexual offences act no 3 of 2006.

He committed the offence on July 29, 2022, at Mambrui in Magarini Sub County within Kilifi County.

In her verdict, Malindi Chief Magistrate, Elizabeth Usui ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support the charge against the Dole.

The Prosecution through prosecution Counsels Kennedy Kirui and Barack Chirchir presented four witnesses and other exhibits to prove the case against the suspect.

The Magistrate further stated that the Islamic tutor gave the minor a green pill when he went to see the accused after falling ill and instructed him to swallow.

The pill made the boy drowsy and the accused took him to another room.

The court observed that despite being incapacitated to move, the complainant was able to witness the ordeal being meted out to him by his religious teacher.

“He was able to tell his surroundings as he even identified the people he saw on his way to bed with the accused person,” the Magistrate stated.

The court heard that the accused person undressed the minor and sodomized him repeatedly leaving him in excruciating pain. He was not unable to attend classes or talk to anyone for one week.

The minor later shared his anguish with a classmate who passed on information to the institution’s management.

The convict disappeared from the institution for one week but was arrested on resuming work.

The court dismissed the accused’s defence that he was being framed by the headteacher because of the grudge between them.

The court also ruled that the teacher was properly identified by the victim and other students on the fateful day.

The medical evidence collaborated with the minor’s testimony that there was penetration, which the court concluded was only committed by the accused person who gave conflicting details of his whereabouts on the date of the offence.

“The court can safely conclude that he stupefied the complainant after which he defiled the complainant,” the Magistrate said.

The accused was allowed 14 days to appeal.