[2001] KECA 46 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the identification evidence against the appellant was unreliable due to the long lapse of time since the witness last saw the appellant, the lack of regular contact, and the absence of corroboration. The identification parade was deemed of no evidential value as the police officer who...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 46 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jonathan Mutisya Valaiu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 123 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless lawfully held for another cause
- Judges
- RO Kwach, EO O'Kubasu
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence, 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
Jonathan Mutisya Valaiu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the identification of the appellant by a single witness was reliable and free from error.
- 2 Whether the appellant's alibi defence was properly considered by the lower courts.
- 3 Whether the prosecution discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the identification evidence against the appellant was unreliable due to the long lapse of time since the witness last saw the appellant, the lack of regular contact, and the absence of corroboration. The identification parade was deemed of no evidential value as the police officer who conducted it did not testify and no records were produced. The appellant's alibi, supported by his wife and never challenged in cross-examination, was not considered by the lower courts, nor was it investigated by the police. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant....
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless lawfully held for another cause
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & O'KUBASU, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2001
BETWEEN
JONATHAN MUTISYA VALAIU ............................ APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC .......................................................... RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Mwera, J.) dated 9th July, 2001 in H.C.CR. APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2001) **********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant, Jonathan Mutisya Valaiu, was convicted of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. His first appeal to the High Court of Kenya at Machakos, Mwera, J (proceeding under the provisions of Section 359 a(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code) was dismissed and hence this second appeal.
We think that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the evidence tendered by the prosecution to the trial court.The robbery, the subject of the charge against him, occurred at about 1:00 a.m. during the night of the 18th December, 2000 at Lita Market, Kathiani Location of Machakos District. There was only one identifying witness, PW 1, a watchman of the premises which was raided by a gang of robbers. This witness was also the victim.
PW 1 testified that the appellant whom he had known before when they were in primary school together several years ago was wearing a jacket and a hat.He had been able to recognise him by the aid of a torch whose power he did not reveal and was also able to identify him in an identification parade which was held two months after the robbery. However, PW 1 admitted that a long period of time had lapsed since he and the appellant had met and moreover, there was no regular contact between them. It is possible therefore, and we think that visual memory had faded with the passage of time.
The identification parade was of no evidential value because the police officer who conducted it did not testify and no records of it were ever availed to the court. Further, the hat allegedly worn by the appellant during the material night and was said to have dropped at the locus was disowned by the appellant and his wife who testified on his behalf.
In the circumstances, we are unable to say that the two courts below correctly directed themselves on the issue of identification, for if they had done so, they would have come to the conclusion that the identification by the single witness of the appellant was free from any error.As we are unable to make that conclusion on a second appeal, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant.
The appellant's defence was that he was not in the market area on the night on which the robbery was committed. He was in his home at Kaviani asleep with his wife and never left the homestead during the material night. His wife testified likewise and was never cross-examined at all. We cannot understand why the two courts below never considered the matter of alibi set up by the appellant.The police, moreover, never checked and tested it though it had been raised by the appellant soon after his arrest. We think that this aspect of the defence is of great significance and was sufficient to have raised doubt in the mind of the trial magistrate.
It is trite that an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge does not assume any burden of proving that answer; and it is a misdirection to refer to any burden resting on the accused in such a case. See Ssentale v Uganda [1968] E A 366.
In the result the appeal is allowed, the conviction is quashed and the sentence of death is set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is held for some other lawful cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of December, 2001.
R. O. KWACH
………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P. K. TUNOI
…………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. O. O'KUBASU
…………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR