[2002] KEHC 352 (KLR)
The court found that although both complainants were injured during the robberies, the prosecution failed to produce medical evidence classifying the injuries of the first complainant, and the injuries of the second complainant were classified as harm, not grievous harm. The value of the stolen property was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 352 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Danson Muiruri Muturi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 998 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part; convictions substituted; sentences varied
- Judges
- VV Patel
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, Conviction Substitution, Injury Classification
- 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
Danson Muiruri Muturi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convictions for robbery with violence should be substituted with convictions for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the sentences of death should be set aside and appropriate sentences imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although both complainants were injured during the robberies, the prosecution failed to produce medical evidence classifying the injuries of the first complainant, and the injuries of the second complainant were classified as harm, not grievous harm. The value of the stolen property was not high, and the appellant had no previous convictions and had spent about nine months in remand. In light of these factors, and with no objection from the state, the court determined that the convictions for robbery with violence should be substituted with convictions for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code. Consequently, the death sentences were set aside and...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part; convictions substituted; sentences varied
Orders
- Convictions on counts 1 and 2 substituted for Robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- Death sentences set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 998 OF 1999
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.3772 of 1998 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Thika)
DANSON MUIRURI MUTURI………………………….…...APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….…RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has now admitted that he convicted the robberies as charged in court Nos.1 and 2 but he has requested us to substitute the convictions for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. on each count.
The evidence was that the appellant jointly with others robbed the two complainants on the night of 15th November, 1998.
The 1st complainant was robbed of Shs.3,500/= cash and a radio cassette. The 2nd one was robbed of a torch, a pair of shoes, a long trouser, a coat and cash Sh.2,000/=.
In considering the request for the substitution we note that during the two robberies both complainants were injured. However, the prosecution failed to produce the medical evidence on the classification of the inquiries on the 1st complainant. The injuries of the 2nd complainant were classified as harm. The value of the properties robbed was not high.
It is our considered view that the request for the substitution, bearing in mind the nature of the robberies is for granting. Indeed, Mr. Monda, the learned state counsel for the Republic does not object to it either.
The appellant had no previous conviction and was in remand for about nine months. There is no remission for robbery sentence.
Order:
The conviction against the appellant on each of the 1st and 2nd count is substituted for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1). P.C. and the death sentences are set aside. We sentence the appellant to 4½ years imprisonment on each of the two counts to run concurrently with effect from 17th September, 1999 plus one stroke on each count. The sentence of one year’s imprisonment on the 4th count stands. It to run concurrently.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of February, 2002.
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
W.K. TUYOIT
JUDGE