[2017] KEHC 1721 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was based solely on the evidence of two witnesses, with the identification of the appellant being particularly weak due to the circumstances of the incident, which occurred at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1721 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Leonard Kimathi alias Nona; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 44 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Identification Evidence, Burden of Proof, Alibi Defence
- 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
Leonard Kimathi alias Nona
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the charge of robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the identification evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the appellant's defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was based solely on the evidence of two witnesses, with the identification of the appellant being particularly weak due to the circumstances of the incident, which occurred at night after a motorcycle accident. There was no corroboration from police officers or recovery of stolen items, and the investigating officer did not testify. The complainant did not provide a description of the robbers to the police, and there was no evidence that the police actively sought the appellant between the date of the offence and his arrest. The trial court also erred in...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The appellant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2017
(From original Judgment, conviction and sentence Criminal Case NO. 456 of the CM’s Court at Meru on 23/2/2017 by J.W. WANGANGA - RM
LEONARD KIMATHI alias NONA………….………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………..………………….....RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that the appellant on the 25th February 2011 at Machengere Sub Location, Kiorimba Location in Tigania West District.
The trial court convicted the appellant on the lesser charge of simple robbery and sentenced the appellant to serve four years imprisonment. The grounds of appeal are that the conviction is based on the uncorroborated evidence of a single identifying witness, trial court erred in law by finding in its judgment that the appellant gave unsworn evidence yet the appellant gave sworn evidence, that the circumstances were not conducive for positive recognition, that the appellant’s alibi defence outweighed the prosecution evidence, that the sentence is harsh and that the prosecution did not discharge its legal burden.
Mr. Arithi appeared for the appellant. Counsel relied on the petition of appeal and submitted that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was not positively identified. Mr. Odhiambo conceded the appeal. Counsel submit that the offence occurred at 7. 00pm and the evidence on identification is not clear. The complainant did not describe how the event took place. Only two witnesses testified for the prosecution.
This is a first appeal and the court is bound to analyse the evidence afresh and make its own conclusion. Before the trial court Pw1 Joseph Thuranira who was the complainant. He testified that on the 22nd February 2011 at 7. 00pm he bonded a motor cycle heading to the market. Two other passengers also bonded the motor cycle. While on the way the motor cycle overturned. One of the passengers held him by the neck while the second passenger frisked his pocket. They took kshs.1000/=, his Id and voters card. He reported the matter at Kibuline police post. He was injured and was referred to the hospital. He was later issued with a P3 form. It is his evidence that the appellant was arrested in relation to another offence and when it was realized he was a wanted person he was charged with the offence.
PW2 Geoffrey Muthomi Murithi is a clinical officer. He produced the P3 form. It is his evidence that the complainant was injured by a blunt object. In his sworn defence, the appellant testified that during the date of the alleged incident, he was working as a lorry turn boy at pipeline area in Nairobi. He denied committing the offence. He was arrested in February 2012.
The main issue for determination is whether the prosecution proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Only two witnesses testified for the prosecution. The incidence took place at 7. 00pm. It is PW1’s evidence that they all fell from the motor cycle. PW1’s screamed when he was being robbed but no one went for his rescue. Nothing was recovered from the appellant. The charge sheet indicates that the appellant was arrested on 18th April 2011. No police officer testified as to whether PW1 described the robbers. From 22nd February 2011 to the date of arrest on 18th April 2011 there is no indication that the police were looking for the appellant. PW1 testified that the appellant went underground. That could have been the case if there was evidence that the police and PW1 went to look for the appellant but did not find him. It is not clear how the appellant was arrested for another offence yet he had gone underground. The investigation officer did not testify. He was a crucial witness who could have corroborated the evidence of PW1. The incidence occurred at night and PW1 had just fallen from the moving motor bike.
In the Judgment the trial court observed that PW1 knew the appellant very well yet pW1 did not testify to that effect. It is also indicated in the judgment that the appellant gave unsworn statement yet he gave sworn evidence. Since the incidence occurred at 7. 00pm and there is no evidence that PW1 gave the appellant’s name or describtion to the police, I do find that the evidence on record does not prove the charge of robbery beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence of robbery. The conviction is not safe as it is based on the evidence of only two witnesses. According to the complainant, the appellant was arrested on a different case. It is not clear how PW1 knew that the appellant had been arrested.
I do agree with Mr. Odhiambo that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is merited and is hereby allowed. The appellant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017
SAID CHITEMBWE
JUDGE