[2018] KEHC 5156 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm was lawful, reasonable, and even lenient given the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The trial magistrate exercised proper discretion after considering mitigation, and there was no error, illegality, or impropriety...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5156 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Cecilia Murangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 158 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Grievous Harm, Mitigation, Supervisory Powers
- 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
Cecilia Murangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment for grievous harm was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary powers to alter the sentence imposed by the subordinate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm was lawful, reasonable, and even lenient given the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The trial magistrate exercised proper discretion after considering mitigation, and there was no error, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence that would warrant the High Court's intervention through its revisionary jurisdiction. The application was therefore without merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 158 OF 2016
(Original Embu CM Criminal Case No. 357 of 2015)
CECILIA MURANGI..................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This is a ruling on an application for revision of sentence in Embu Chief Magistrate Criminal Case No. 357 of 215 in which the applicant was charged with the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. She was convicted of the offence and sentenced to serve seven (7) years imprisonment.
2. The grounds relied on in this application are that the applicant was sentenced on 11/08/2015 and has now served for more than 2 ½ years.
3. The applicant says she ways she has reformed and is remorseful. She further states that she is a single mother of five (5) children. At the prison, the applicant states that she has undergone vocational training like knitting, detergent and shampoo making.
4. The respondent opposed this application on grounds that the maximum sentence for the offence of grievous harm is life imprisonment. Seven years imposed was too lenient in the circumstances and ought to be retained. It is further stated that the applicant was charged alongside two others whose appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
5. It is further deposed by Leah Mati the prosecution counsel that the victim of the assault suffered permanent deformity and continues to suffer mental torture arising from the criminal act of the applicant and her co-accuseds.
6. This court is hereby called upon to exercise its powers for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with this court (High Court) to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any subordinate courts for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or impropriety of any order passed by th subordinate court.
7. Section 364 provides that no order shall be made unless the applicant has been given a chance to be heard personally of through his legal representative.
8. Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution confers upon the High Court supervisory powers over subordinate courts, tribunals or any other quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. The court may make any order or give any directions it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.
9. The concern of the applicant herein is only sentence. She does not fault the learned magistrate for imposing the said sentence as opposed to any other.
10. The maximum sentence under Section 234 of the Penal Code is life imprisonment. I agree with the state counsel that the sentence of seven (7) years imposed was not only reasonable but too lenient in the circumstances. The sentence was within the law and does not call for the invocation of this court's powers under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. The record shows that the applicant was given a chance to give her mitigation before the sentence was passed. The magistrate properly exercised his discretion in sentencing as required by the law.
12. I find no merit in this application and disallow it according.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2018.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Mate for the Respondent
Applicant present