[2011] KEHC 3238 (KLR)
The court found that the recognition evidence from four eyewitnesses, all of whom knew the appellant and observed him in broad daylight, was consistent and credible. The appellant did not demonstrate any motive for the witnesses to fabricate evidence. The court held that the P3 form, prepared by a Clinical Officer,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3238 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Benard Muchomba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 238 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Evidence of Recognition, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof
- 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
Benard Muchomba
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence of recognition by the four eyewitnesses was sufficient to identify the appellant as the perpetrator.
- 2 Whether the P3 medical report prepared by a Clinical Officer was admissible as expert evidence.
- 3 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the recognition evidence from four eyewitnesses, all of whom knew the appellant and observed him in broad daylight, was consistent and credible. The appellant did not demonstrate any motive for the witnesses to fabricate evidence. The court held that the P3 form, prepared by a Clinical Officer, was properly admitted under Section 77(1) of the Evidence Act, and the appellant's challenge to its admissibility was raised too late. Even disregarding the P3 form, the court found overwhelming evidence that the appellant used actual violence to rob the complainant, satisfying the elements of robbery with violence. The appellant's defence was a mere denial and did not raise...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction against the appellant is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO. 238 OF 2009
LESIIT, KASANGO, J. J.
BENARD MUCHOMBA...............................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................................................................RESPONDENT
(From: Original Criminal Case No.839 of 2009 Tigania; S.O. Mogute SRM)
JUDGEMENT
The appellant challenged the evidence of recognition adduced against him. There were four eye witnesses of the incident. There was the complainant himself, PW1. His testimony was that the incident took place at 4 pm. That when the appellant demanded money from him, he chopped the fingers of his left hand. The complainant said he continued to scream for help and PW2, 3 and 4 responded and went to where he was. Each of these witnesses were alone when they went to the complainant’s rescue. They met at the scene and found the appellant busy chopping the complainant’s fingers on the left hand.
We find that the evidence adduced by the four witnesses was consistent. All four witnesses knew the appellant before this incident for a considerable time He was no stranger to them. The incident was at 4 p.m. and therefore in broad daylight. Each of the eye witnesses described the clothing in which the appellant was dressed that day, a red T-shirt and a black trouser. There was nothing to prevent the complainant and PW2, 3 and 4 from seeing and recognizing the appellant.
We have considered the appellant’s defence. He did not allege that any of the witnesses had any grudge against him. We find that none of the eye-witnesses had any reason to fabricate the evidence against the appellant.
The prosecution has shown that the appellant robbed the complainant of 860/= and that during the attack, the appellant chopped off four fingers from the complainant’s left hand. The injuries were classified as grievous harm as shown in the P3 form produced by PW5.
The appellant challenged the evidence of PW5 as being incompetent for reason PW5 was merely a Clinical Officer and not a Medical Doctor. Part III of the Evidence Act deals with Documentary Evidence. S 77 (1) of the Evidence Act which deals with expert reports provides thus:
“77(1) Report under the hand of a Government analyst, medical practitioner or of any ballistics expert, document examiner or geologist upon any person, matter or thing submitted to him for examination or analysis may be used in evidence.”
This provision gives the court discretion to use the P3 form report as evidence. The prosecution has shown that it was prepared by a medical practitioner. PW5 was a Clinical Officer at Miathere District Hospital. He is the one who examined and treated the complainant as part of his routine duties at the hospital.
In order to discredit the report, other expert evidence needed to be adduced to show either that the P3 form was not made by a qualified personnel, or prove some other basis for rejecting the report. The appellant did not oppose the admission of the P3 form at the trial.It is rather late for the appellant to oppose the report at this stage.
Even if the P3 form were to be disregarded, we still find that there was sufficient evidence on record to find that the appellant chopped off the complainant’s four fingers during the robbery. The ingredients for the offence of robbery with violence were met as the appellant used actual violence in order to steal money from the complainant which he succeeded in doing.
Having carefully considered this appeal, we find that the evidence adduced against the appellant was overwhelming. The prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant violently assaulted the complainant and violently robbed him of money. The appellant’s defence was a mere denial which could not withstand the prosecution case against him. We agree with the learned trial magistrate’s finding that the prosecution proved the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly we find no merit in the appellant’s appeal and do hereby dismiss it accordingly.
We uphold the conviction entered against the appellant and confirm the sentence.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Meru this 31st day of March, 2011.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
KASANGO, J.
JUDGE