[2023] KEHC 3338 (KLR)
The court found that none of the seven prosecution witnesses saw the accused stab the deceased, and the only evidence linking the accused to the crime was suspicion based on alleged threats to his ex-wife. The court held that suspicion, however strong, is not sufficient to establish guilt, and the evidence on record...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3338 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecution; Defendant: Peter Mwebia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 45 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found not guilty at close of prosecution case; acquitted under Section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure, Standard of Proof
- 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
Director of Public Prosecution
Applicant
Peter Mwebia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant placing him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the accused opts to remain silent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the seven prosecution witnesses saw the accused stab the deceased, and the only evidence linking the accused to the crime was suspicion based on alleged threats to his ex-wife. The court held that suspicion, however strong, is not sufficient to establish guilt, and the evidence on record was not enough to sustain a conviction if the accused chose to remain silent. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, and he was found not guilty under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found not guilty at close of prosecution case; acquitted under Section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- Accused is found not guilty and is ordered to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecution v Mwebia (Criminal Case 45 of 2017) [2023] KEHC 3338 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3338 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 45 of 2017
TW Cherere, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Director of Public Prosecution
Prosecutor
and
Peter Mwebia
Accused
Ruling
1. Peter Mwebia (Accused) is charged with the offence of Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on June 8, 2017 at Kathiranga village, Githongo Location Abothuguchi West Division, Imenti Central Sub-County within Meru County murdered Diana Makandi
2. Accused denied committing the offence and the prosecution has called seven witnesses who have testified against him and closed its case on March 22, 2023.
3. At this stage, court is called upon to determine whether, based on the evidence adduced, the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the Accused person to be placed on his defence to answer to the charge.
4. It is important to note that the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution throughout the trial to prove their case against the accused person. That burden does not shift to the accused person. This is so because the accused person’s constitutionally guaranteed rights include the right to remain silent, the right to adduce and challenge evidence and the right not to give any incriminating evidence. However, at this stage, the prosecution is not expected to have proved their case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The measure is for a prima facie case to be established.
5. Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that:“When the evidence of the witnesses for the Prosecution has been concluded, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or any one of the several or any one of the several accused committed the offence shall, after hearing, if necessary any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.”
6. Having considered the testimonies of the seven prosecution witnesses, the question is whether the evidence tendered establishes a prima facie case against the accused, or whether the accused has a case to answer.
7. In Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owi [2013] eKLR, the court defined a prima facie case as follows:“‘Prima facie’ is a latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition as, “sufficient to establish a fact or raise presumption unless disapproved or rebutted”. ‘Prima facie’ is defined by the same dictionary as “the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.”
8. A prima facie case is therefore established where the evidence tendered by the Prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court of law to return a guilty verdict even if the Accused opts to remain silent.
9. In Ronald Nyaga Kiura v Republic, the court held:“It is important to note that at the close of the Prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code...”.
10. None of the seven prosecution witnessed Accused stab the deceased. The evidence discloses that Accused was suspected to have stabbed the deceased only for the reason that he had allegedly been threatening to harm his ex-wife PW1 from who he had separated.
11. From the foregoing, I find that the court is likely to embarrass itself if it places Accused on his defence for the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction in the event that he exercises his right to give no defence.
12. In Sawe vRep [2003] KLR 364 the Court of Appeal held:“Suspicion, however strong, cannot provide the basis of inferring guilt which must be proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.”
13. Consequently, under the Provisions of Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Accused is hereby found not guilty and it is ordered that he be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - KinotiAccused - PresentFor the Accused - Mr. Munene AdvocateFor the State - Ms. Rita (PC 1)