[2017] KEHC 733 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's reasons for seeking revision were purely mitigating factors, which had already been considered at the time of sentencing. The sentences imposed for detaining a female for immoral purposes and rape were within the statutory limits. There was no evidence of any mistake,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 733 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martin Muchangi Njeru; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 3 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Rape Offence, Detaining for Immoral Purposes
- 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
Martin Muchangi Njeru
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were illegal, improper, or irregular to warrant revision by the High Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant's mitigating circumstances justify interference with the sentence under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's reasons for seeking revision were purely mitigating factors, which had already been considered at the time of sentencing. The sentences imposed for detaining a female for immoral purposes and rape were within the statutory limits. There was no evidence of any mistake, irregularity, or illegality in the proceedings or the sentences imposed by the trial court. Therefore, the High Court found no basis to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3 OF 2017
MARTIN MUCHANGI NJERU................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.......RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This application for revision seeks for review of sentences in two counts. The accused was charged and convicted of two offences. Firstly, count 1 was of detaining a female for immoral purposes contrary to Section 151 of the Penal Code. Count II was of rape contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment on each count with the sentences running concurrently.
2. The grounds supporting this application are that the applicant has already served one year sentence and that he has reformed. He says that he has a big family responsibility because his father is irresponsible and a drunkard. It is alleged that he has chased the mother of the applicant from the family land so that he can sell it out. At home is the applicant's only brother aged 7 years and is incapable of saving the situation of the intended sale of the family land.
3. The respondent opposed the application on ground that the sentences imposed were within the law. It was contended that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable in this application because the applicant has not pointed out any mistake, irregularity or illegality committed by the trial magistrate.
4. In an application of this nature, it is imperative that the relevant provision of the law be examined vis a vis the grounds in support of the application.
5. Section 362 provides:-
The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.
6. This court is empowered by the law to correct any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, order or sentence that may have been committed or imposed by a subordinate court.
7. The reason relied on by the applicant are mitigating factors normally given after conviction but before the court passes sentence. The applicant in this case was accorded a chance to mitigate before passing sentence.
8. I have looked at Section 151 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act and I find that the sentences of ten (10) years were within the law. The proceedings and the judgment of the court does not reveal any irregularity, impropriety or mistake to warrant revision by this court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this application.
10. It is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT EMBU THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Manyal for respondent
Applicant present in person