[2014] KEHC 3706 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of six years imprisonment was lenient given the gravity of the offence, the permanent disability inflicted on the complainant, and the appellant's lack of remorse. The trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3706 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Antony Njagi Obadiah; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 26 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Penal Code Section 234, Mitigation, Remorse, Injury Assessment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Antony Njagi Obadiah
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of six years imprisonment for grievous harm was excessive or unfair.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate properly considered the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of six years imprisonment was lenient given the gravity of the offence, the permanent disability inflicted on the complainant, and the appellant's lack of remorse. The trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and the seriousness of the injuries. The appellate court saw no reason to interfere with the sentence, as the punishment was within the statutory limits and proportionate to the offence committed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2014
LESIIT, J
ANTONY NJAGI OBADIAH.................................APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the Judgment and sentence in Chuka Criminal Case Number 540 of 2012)
RULING
The Appellant ANTONY NJAGI OBADIAH was charged and convicted of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment on 18th December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the Appellant lodged this appeal.
The Appellant relied on supplementary grounds of appeal in which he pleaded that he was satisfied with the conviction and was only asking the court to reduce his sentence. He pleaded that he had communicated with his family and had sorted out their differences. He also pleaded that he had two children and that he was the sole bread winner.
Mr. Murage, prosecution counsel represented the Respondent in this appeal. Counsel opposed the appeal and in his submissions, he dwelt on the issue of identification. That was however, not challenged by the Appellant as when he stood to submit on his appeal he abandoned earlier grounds of appeal which challenged issues of identification.
The Appellant was sentenced to six years imprisonment for a charge of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. Under the section a person convicted of grievous harm is liable to imprisonment for life.
What would determine the fairness of the sentence is a consideration of the injury inflicted on the complainant, the manner in which it was executed, the personal circumstances of the Appellant and finally the Appellants attitude towards the offence.
Before passing sentence, the learned trial magistrate observed;
“Sentence: The offence committed is quite serious. The accused does not seem to be remorseful. On 19. 8.2013 the complainant was in court. I noted that he had a healed scar on the forehead. His left hand looked very weak. The accused assaulted him rendering his hand useless. He took the law into his hands. In order to deter other would be offenders; the accused is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.”
PW6 described injuries suffered by the complainant as a fracture of the ulna bone on left hand with tendons and blood vessels on same side damaged. The complainant also suffered a cut on the forehead injuries were assessed as grievous harm. In addition the learned trial magistrate observed that the complainant’s left hand appeared very weak and useless as it could no longer be used.
The Appellant attacked the complainant as he tried to open his house. The complainant was unarmed. The Appellant was complaining that the complainant had falsely accused him of having cut his bananas. At the trial, the Appellant said nothing in his mitigation. The learned trial magistrate found him to have no remorse for the offence.
I have considered the Appellant’s appeal. I find that the learned trial magistrate gave a lenient sentence to the Appellant especially given the fact the Appellant was not remorseful for the offence, the seriousness of the offence especially the fact the complainant has lost the use of his left hand. I will accordingly not disturb the sentence.
In the result the Appellant’s Appeal fails for lack of merit. The conviction is upheld and sentence confirmed. The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 24th DAY OF JULY, 2014
LESIIT J.
JUDGE