https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7006

Kirii v Republic (Criminal Case E010 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7006 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7006 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Case E010 of 2024 RL Korir, J May 22, 2026 Between Peter Muriungi Kirii Applicant and Republic Respondent Sentence 1.Peter Muriungi Kirii (accused) was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The Particulars were that on 20th day of July 2024 at around 14.00 hrs at Nthu’ngu ya Kithere village, Mauthini Sub-location, Kathangachini location, Tharaka North Sub-County, within Tharaka Nithi County, unlawfully murdered John Nthiga. 2.He took plea on 19th September, 2024 denied the charge and was released on a bond of Ksh.500,000/- pending trial. 3.On 30th October 2024 the court was informed that the accused wished to plea bargain. Parties subsequently filed a Plea Agreement dated 21st November 2024. 4.The court (Gitari J.) accepted the plea agreement after duly satisfying itself that the Accused had plea bargained voluntarily. 5.The Accused pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter contrary to section 205 of the Penal Cde on 21st November 2024 and a plea of guilty was entered. 6.The facts were read by the prosecutor as follows:-“On 20th July 2024 the wife of the deceased was at the farm where she was harvesting cow peas when the accused went there with three other people. One ad a radio. The deceased was interested in buying the radio. The accused insisted that the deceased could not buy the radio. A confrontation ensued between the accused and deceased. The accused produced a knife and stabbed the deceased on the chest. The deceased died instantly. The accused escaped. The matter was reported at Marimanti Police Station. The accused was arrested a month later. The body was moved to Marimanti Hospital Mortuary. A postmortem was done and the doctor found the cause of the death was a penetrating stab would to the heart. I produce the postmortem Form as exhibit -1. The knife was not recovered.” 7.The Accused accepted the Facts as true and was convicted on his own guilty plea of the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. 8.The court called for a pre-sentence probation officer’s report and the same was filed on 11th December 2024. 9.At the sentencing hearing on 29th April 2025, Ms Kijaru learned defence Counsel submitted that the Accused was a father of 4 children; was remorseful for the offence; and prayed for a lenient sentence. 10.The learned prosecution Counsel on the other hand acknowledged that the Accused had saved the court’s time by plea bargaining. Counsel however submitted that a life was lost and the deceased was a husband and father. She urged for a custodial sentence to act as a deterrent. Counsel also submitted that the Accused was not a first offender having been convicted of stock theft earlier. She requested for time to avail the records.She had not provided the records by the time of this sentence and I shall therefore treat the Accused as a first offender. 11.In further mitigation, the Accused asked for leniency stating that he had young children. 12.The purposes of sentencing as set out in the Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines (2014) are:-i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.ii.Deterrence: to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.iii.Rehabilitation: to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.iv.Restorative justice: to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages.v.Community protection: to protect the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation: to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct. 13.A basic principle in sentencing is that sentences should be proportionate to the offence. This was aptly stated in Hoare Vs. The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348), as follows:-“A basic principle in sentencing law is that a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in light of its objective circumstances.” 14.In Thomas Mwambu Wenyi Vs Republic (2017) eKLR, the Court of Appeal cited the decision of the supreme court of India in Alister Anthony Pereira Vs State of Mahareshtra at paragraph 70-71 where the court aptly summarized the objectives and principles of sentencing in the following words:-“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing an accused person on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstance of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurispendence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.” 15.I have considered the circumstances of the case. It was stated in the facts that the Accused and the deceased got into an altercation when the deceased refused to sell his radio to the Accused at the price that the Accused wanted. That the altercation degenerated into a fight and the Accused whipped out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the chest causing him fatal injury. 16.It appears from these facts, which the Accused accepted as true, that the Accused was the aggressor. To the mind of the court, the aggressive conduct was uncalled for and the stabbing of the deceased was senseless. 17.I have considered the pre-sentence probation officer’s report. It states that the Accused was given to violence as reported by the local administration and even part of his family. The victim impact statement stated that the family of the deceased was facing hard ship owing to loss of their bread-winner. 18.For his serious offence, the Accused was liable to a long custodial sentence.Section 205 of the Penal Code provides:-“Any person who commits the felony of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.” 19.In this case, I have taken into consideration the fact that the Accused was remorseful and was willing to take responsibility for his actions in the first instance. He shall therefore be spared the maximum sentence. The sentence however must reflect the seriousness of the offence and serve justice to the victims. 20.In the end, I sentence the Accused to serve 15 years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall be deemed to run from 17th September 2024 being the date of arrest and pre-trial custody. 21.The Accused having plea bargained the charge, has 14 days’ right of appeal against sentence only.Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026...........................R. LAGAT - KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of the Accused; Ms Musyimi holding brief for Ms. Kijaru for the Accused;Ms Rukunga for the Republic; Muriuki (Court Assistant)