[2004] KEHC 1871 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was properly identified by PW2, who knew him personally and saw him emerge from the latrine immediately after the complainant raised the alarm. PW2 promptly informed both the complainant and the assistant chief of the appellant's identity, and this identification was consistent and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1871 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Otieno Oduor; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 160 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Identification Evidence, Burden 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
Edward Otieno Oduor
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly identified as the perpetrator of the robbery.
- 2 Whether the conviction for simple robbery was supported by the evidence.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was properly identified by PW2, who knew him personally and saw him emerge from the latrine immediately after the complainant raised the alarm. PW2 promptly informed both the complainant and the assistant chief of the appellant's identity, and this identification was consistent and unshaken. The appellant's own admission of being at the scene further corroborated the prosecution's case. The trial court's finding of guilt for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code was supported by the evidence, and the sentence imposed was lawful. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2003
EDWARD OTIENO ODUOR ………………………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………..PROSECUTOR
(APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL SIAYA SRM CR. CASE NO. 481 OF 2002)
JUDGMENT
Edward Otieno Oduor was charged before the Senior
Resident Magistrate’s Court, Siaya in Criminal Case No. 481 of 2002
with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2)
of the Penal Code. He denied the charge and was therefore tried
before Mr. F.M. Omenta Senior Resident Magistrate who at the end
of the trial found him guilty of simple robbery contrary to section
296(1) of the Penal Code. Upon conviction he was sentenced to 4
years with 2 strokes and it is against both his conviction and
sentence that he has lodged this appeal.
It was alleged that on 22/6/2002 at Akala market in Ndori
sub/location within Siaya District of the Nyanza Province jointly with
others not before the Court the appellant robbed Samson Ombima
Ochieng of Cash Kshs. 2,000/- and immediately before or
immediately after the robbery he used violence to the said Samson
Ombima Ochieng.
The said Samson Ombima Ochieng testified as PW1 and said
that on 22/6/2002 he went to a latrine at the said market and while
he was relieving himself a man came and held him by the neck and
robbed him of kshs. 2,000/- . PW1 said that he raised an alarm and
the man ran away. PW2 a water attendant at the said market told
the Court that while he was at his place of work he heard screams
from a latrine and immediately thereafter he saw the appellant whom
he knew emerge from the said latrine and was followed by PW1 who
was screaming that he had been robbed of kshs. 2,000/- and wanted
help. PW2 said that he told PW1 that the person who had robbed
him was called Otieno and used to prepare soup using legs of cows.
PW2 said that the assistant chief went to see him alter on and
he told him that the man who had robbed PW1 was Otieno. PW3
Assistant Chief of the local area received the complaints of PW1 who
told him that PW2 was his witness. PW3 said that he went to see
PW2 who told him that the person PW1 was following was the
appellant. The appellant admitted that he was at the said toilet but
he denied that he robbed the complainant.
I find that the appellant was convicted on sound evidence. He
was properly identified by PW2 who saw him. PW2 told PW1 and
PW3 the name of the appellant. Appellant admitted that he was to
prepare soup. The appeal is therefore without merit and the same is
dismissed.
Dated and delivered this 26th April 2004.
B.K. TANUI
JUDGE