[2002] KEHC 213 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was identified and arrested soon after the commission of the offence, the charge sheet was defective because it charged him under Section 296(1) of the Penal Code while the evidence and particulars pointed to an offence under Section 296(2), which is more serious. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 213 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Juma Bakari; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 465 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Defective Charge Sheet, Identification Evidence, Right to Fair Trial
- 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
Juma Bakari
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge sheet was defective for charging under Section 296(1) instead of Section 296(2) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the appellant was properly identified as one of the robbers.
- 3 Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself against a more serious charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was identified and arrested soon after the commission of the offence, the charge sheet was defective because it charged him under Section 296(1) of the Penal Code while the evidence and particulars pointed to an offence under Section 296(2), which is more serious. The court held that the appellant was prejudiced as he did not have an opportunity to prepare his defence for the more serious charge. The conviction was therefore quashed and the sentence set aside on technical grounds related to the defective charge and the resulting unfairness to the appellant.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.465 OF 2000
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 1495 of 2000 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa –G. Katasi –R.M.)
JUMA BAKARI ….………………………………………….. APPELLANT
- VERSUS -
REPUBLIC …..…………………………………………….. RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
The appellant was charged and convicted for the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296 (1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve 7 years imprisonment, and 7 strokes of the cane. He has preferred an appeal against both Conviction and Sentence and has cited 5 grounds of appeal which he combined in his Submissions.
The brief facts are that on 28th April, 2002 PW2, PW3 and PW4 were transporting shop goods loaded onto bicycles to their destinations on behalf of their employer PW1, when they were attacked by a group of people and a bag of sugar stolen. From the evidence there is some discrepancy as to how many the attackers were but there is no doubt that a chase ensued and one of them, the appellant was cornered when he entered the Kenya Navy Compound. The bag of sugar was later recovered in a building under construction as members of the public had seen some of the Robbers including the appellant go to that direction. The appellant was arrested by the Navy Officers and handed over to PW7. He was identified by PW4 as one of the persons he saw jumping out of the house still under construction and he was chased upto the Kenya Navy compound. The appellant challenged his arrest saying the prosecution should have called the Navy officer who arrested him initially. He also said he was arrested for trespassing into the Navy compound and he had heard and seen people chasing after a thief. He gave an unsworn evidence.
The State Counsel did not support the Conviction and Sentence and rightly so on the ground that the charge was defective. The appellant was charged with Robbery Contrary to Section 296 (1) but the evidence adduced pointed to offence under Section 296(2) and so were the particulars. The Court did not give reasons for having ignored the discrepancy. The appellant therefore did not have an opportunity to prepare his defence for a more serious charge.
I have considered the evidence or record and find that the appellant no doubt was arrested soon after the commission of the offence and was identified by PW2, 3 and 4 as one of the Robbers. He was trailed all the way upto his arrest. I also agree it would not be fair to convict him on a charge to which he had no chance to defend himself and yet is very serious. He has already been in prison for a period of over 2 years. Taking all the factors into account, the conviction is quashed on those technicalities as pointed out and Sentence is set aside.
Dated at Mombasa this1ST day of November, 2002.
P.M. TUTUI
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE