[2018] KEHC 6362 (KLR)
The court found that the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 were mutually corroborative and established that the appellant was present and participated in the assault on the complainant. The identification was reliable due to sufficient moonlight and the immediate intervention of witnesses who knew the appellant....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6362 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Muthomi Kairithia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 108 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction for robbery with violence set aside; conviction for causing grievous harm substituted; sentence of four years imprisonment imposed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Grievous Harm, Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence
- 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
David Muthomi Kairithia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly identified as one of the assailants during the incident.
- 2 Whether the evidence established the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt.
- 3 Whether the appellant's alibi defence was credible and displaced the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 were mutually corroborative and established that the appellant was present and participated in the assault on the complainant. The identification was reliable due to sufficient moonlight and the immediate intervention of witnesses who knew the appellant. The appellant's alibi was displaced by the prosecution evidence. However, the court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the element of theft necessary for a conviction of robbery with violence, as it was unclear whether the complainant's money was actually stolen. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction for robbery with violence and substituted it...
Court Disposition
conviction for robbery with violence set aside; conviction for causing grievous harm substituted; sentence of four years imprisonment imposed
Orders
- The conviction for robbery with violence is set aside.
- The appellant is convicted of causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2017
CORAM: D.S. MAJANJA J.
BETWEEN
DAVID MUTHOMI KAIRITHIA....................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.....................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence of Hon.G. Sogomo, SRM dated 21st September 2017 at Principal Magistrate’s Court at Tigania in Criminal Case No. 1156 of 2016)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, DAVID MUTHOMI KAIRITHIA, was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya). It was alleged that on 23rd April, 2016 at Ikoone centre, Akaiga sub location, Akaiga Location in Tigania East District within Meru County, jointly with another not before court, robbed MUTEGI STEPHEN of his cash Kshs. 700/= and immediately before or immediately after the time of such robbery while armed with a crude weapon namely panga, used actual violence on the said MUTEGI STEPHEN by cutting him on one left side of the head. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death.
2. The evidence before the trial court was that Mutegi Stephen (PW 1) was headed from Gikoone village on 23rd April 2016 at 9. 30pm when he met his friends Zakary M'Iruri (PW 2) and Robert Mbaabu (PW 3). They spoke for a while then parted. After about 10 metres, PW 1 was attacked by two assailants. He fell down and recognized the appellant as one of them. The assailants started to beat him but he fought back. He grabbed the appellant's hand as he tried to cut him with a panga. At this point he realized it was the appellant as there was sufficient moonlight and he also raised alarm which caused PW 2 and PW 3 to come to his rescue.
3. PW 2 recalled that he saw the appellant fighting with PW 1 and together with PW 3 they went and separated them although PW 1 had his head cut. PW 2 told the court he knew the appellant. PW 3 also confirmed that after leaving PW 1, he saw him wrestling with the appellant who now had a cut on his head. He recalled that together with PW 2 they disarmed the appellant who had a machete. He also knew the appellant from the village. Thereafter they took the appellant to hospital.
A Clinical Officer, Martin Njeri (PW 4), who examined PW 1 confirmed that he had suffered a deep cut on the parietal area of the head caused by a sharp object. She noted that the degree of injury was grievous. The matter was reported at Mikinduri Police Station on 24th April 2016 by PW 1 as confirmed by the investigating officer PC Stanley Kipchumba (PW 5).
5. In his sworn evidence, the appellant denied the offence and stated that on 23rd April 2016, he was at home. He claimed that PW 1 had tried to frame him following a quarrel with his wife.
6. This is a case where the testimony of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 corroborated each other. The appellant assaulted PW 1 and in the struggle, he was caught by PW 2 and PW 3 in the act. The case of mistaken identity is therefore excluded. What is in doubt is whether there was intent to steal from PW 1. Although PW 1 lost Kshs. 700/=, it is not clear that it was stolen. The evidence also displaces his alibi defence.
7. I therefore set aside the conviction for robbery with violence and substitute it with causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. I sentence the appellant to four (4) years imprisonment from the date of conviction and sentence.
DATED and DELIVERED at MERU this 29th day of May 2018.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Appellant in person.
Mr Namiti, Prosecution Counsel, instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.