[2024] KEHC 3260 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of three witnesses, had established a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that there was sufficient evidence on record which, if unchallenged, could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 3260 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director Of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Joseph Tharai M’Muchui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 7 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Has a Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, 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
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Applicant
Joseph Tharai M’Muchui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Whether Accused Has a Case to Answer After Prosecution Closes Its Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant placing him on his defence for the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimonies of three witnesses, had established a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, the court held that there was sufficient evidence on record which, if unchallenged, could sustain a conviction. Consequently, the accused was required to be placed on his defence to answer to the charge of murder as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also ensured that the accused was informed of his constitutional rights in accordance with Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
Orders
- Accused is placed on his defence to answer to the charge of murder.
- Provisions of Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution explained to the accused in the presence of his advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Director of Public Prosecutions v M’Muchui (Criminal Case 7 of 2018) [2024] KEHC 3260 (KLR) (14 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 3260 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 7 of 2018
TW Cherere, J
March 14, 2024
Between
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
and
Joseph Tharai M’Muchui
Accused
Ruling
1. Joseph Tharai M’Muchui (Accused) is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code in that he murdered one Philip Itharei Mugambi on 17th January, 2018 at Giakii Location in Imenti North Sub County within Meru County.
2. Accused denied committing the offence of and the prosecution managed to call three witness.
3. This court is therefore called upon to determine whether, whether a primafacie case has been established to warrant the accused person to be placed on her defence to answer to the charge of Murder.
4. It should be remembered that the legal onus is always on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution’s case, the case is merely one in which on full consideration might possible be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. (See In Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332 at 335).
5. Having considered the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established to warrant Accused to be placed on his defence.
6. The provisions of Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(i)(j)(k) of the Constitution are hereby explained to the accused person in the presence of his advocate Mr. Maheli.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneAccused - PresentFor the Accused - Ms. Thuo AdvocateFor the State - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC 1)