[2013] KEHC 1613 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, direct, and corroborated by eyewitnesses who intervened during the incident. The complainant suffered severe, life-threatening injuries and was hospitalized for over a month. The trial court exercised leniency in sentencing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1613 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Christopher Gikundi Kaberia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 80 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Sentencing, Appeals Process, Evidence Evaluation
- 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
Christopher Gikundi Kaberia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for causing grievous harm was supported by the evidence on record.
- 2 Whether the sentence of ten years imprisonment was excessive or warranted interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, direct, and corroborated by eyewitnesses who intervened during the incident. The complainant suffered severe, life-threatening injuries and was hospitalized for over a month. The trial court exercised leniency in sentencing the appellant to ten years imprisonment, despite the statutory maximum being life imprisonment. There was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence, as the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence and the sentence was within the court's discretion. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and both the conviction and sentence...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction for causing grievous harm is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2010
BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER GIKUNDI KABERIA...…….………APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC…………………………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The appellant in this matter was convicted by the Senior Resident Magistrate in Maua Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court criminal case number 3562 of 2008 and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment. He had been charged of causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that the appellant had on 5th October 2008 at Kanuni Location in Igembe District within Eastern Province unlawfully caused grievous harm to Gladys Karambu. He pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted of the offence charged.
He was aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, and filed the current appeal in person. In the appeal, he listed several grounds. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was unrepresented. He asked the court to consider his appeal, particularly as concerns the sentence. At the end he asked for the courts mercy and forgiveness.
The state, represented by Mr Ongige, opposed the appeal. Mr Ongige asked the court to consider that the injuries caused on the complainant were severe and the complainant was likely to be traumatised for the rest of her life. He urged the court the court not to interfere with the sentence as it was deterrent enough.
This being a first appellate court I am bound to follow the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal in Kinyanjui vs. Republic (2004) 2 KLR 364, with respect to criminal appeals. It was said that the first appellate court must look at the evidence presented before the trial court afresh and re-evaluate and re-examine the same, and thereafter reach its own conclusions. The first appellate court must bear in mind that it did not have the opportunity to see the witnesses as they testified. The court should also look at the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant. I also remind myself of the point made in Buru vs. Republic (2005) 2 KLR 533 and Republic vs. Oyier (1985) KLR 353, that a first appellate court will not normally interfere with the finding of a lower court on the credibility of witnesses unless it is shown that no reasonable tribunal could make such findings.
I have perused the record of the lower court. It is my view that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the appellant. It was direct and damning. There is nothing that can be faulted about it. There were eyewitnesses who were present when the appellant so severely brutalised the complainant and who intervened to save the complainant’s life. The complainant sustained severe injuries and was in hospital for a long time.
The appellant has invited me to consider reducing the sentence of ten years imprisonment. The penalty for causing grievous harm as defined in section 234 of the Penal Code is imprisonment for life. The court has great discretion on the matter. The injuries inflicted on the complainant were life threatening. I note that she was in hospital for over one month. The trial court was no doubt lenient on the appellant. I find no basis upon which I can interfere with the sentence imposed.
The upshot of this is that the appeal herein is not allowed. The conviction of the appellant of causing grievous harm is upheld, and the sentence of ten years imprisonment is confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
DATED,SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 24TH OCTOBER, 2013
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE