[2013] KEHC 827 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was so full of glaring contradictions that it was not safe to be a basis for conviction. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the transfer and handling of the alleged money, and there was no reliable evidence linking the appellants to the alleged...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 827 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charo Katana Randu; Respondent: Republic of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 58 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Conviction, Contradictory Evidence, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Charo Katana Randu
Appellant
Republic of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction was safe in light of contradictory evidence presented by the prosecution.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was so full of glaring contradictions that it was not safe to be a basis for conviction. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent regarding the transfer and handling of the alleged money, and there was no reliable evidence linking the appellants to the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to produce crucial evidence, such as the black paper purportedly used in the alleged con. The court concluded that the case was poorly investigated and prosecuted, and that there was sufficient doubt to warrant allowing the appeal. Consequently, the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- The lower court's conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2011
1. CHARO KATANA RANDU ………………….………….. 1ST APPELLANT
V E R SU S
JUDGMENT
“1. CHARO KATANA RANDU
The Appellants pleaded not guilty and a trial ensued. At the conclusion of the trial the Court convicted them as charged and sentenced them to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000/- each and in default to serve 12 months imprisonment.
Learned Counsel for the State Mr. Mungai did not oppose the appeal against conviction and sentence. He submitted that the complainant’s evidence was contradictory and could not be relied upon to support a conviction. He proceeded to examine the trial Court’s evidence in his submissions.
I have reassessed the lower Court's evidence and I too find that the evidence was so full of glaring contradictions that it was not safe to be a basis for conviction.
The complainant in evidence first stated that she gave Kshs. 450,000/- to her sister who inturn gave it to the 1st Appellant and who inturn gave it to the 2nd Appellant. The 1st Appellant is the complainant's brother-in-law whilst the 2nd Appellant is her nephew. Later, she said that she was invited by the 1st Appellant to see how the money was being printed. The one who was printing the money was called Musa. The 2nd Appellant was not present where the money was being printed. The complainant then stated-
On complainant being cross examined in her response which is not too clear suggested that the Appellants did not receive her money. She stated-
Further the complainant stated-
Bendera was PW2. She denied that she witnessed anything that happened before the arrest relating to this case.
complainant informed him that she ‘was approached by her sister(Bendera)mother to accused 1 and wife to accused 2 who told her had know(sic)some persons who could have multiplied the money. …. She (complainant) said that the two brought two other persons marked (sic) the money, they tied the money put in the house asked her to wait for it to mature. She later realized she had been conned.’
There is no doubt that this case was poorly investigated and prosecuted. The prosecution did not lead evidence of the black paper which the complainant said was given to her. On the whole there is sufficient doubt to lead this Court to allow the appeal as sought.
The lower court's conviction is hereby quashed and the sentence is hereby set aside. The Court orders that each of the Appellants be refunded the fine of Kshs. 50,000/- on evidence being produced of such payment.
MARY KASANGO
<p justify;="" margin-left:="" 40px;"=""> JUDGE