[2011] KEHC 2472 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, connecting the appellant to the offence of robbery with violence. No witness identified the appellant as a participant in the robbery, and nothing was recovered from him that could be linked to the stolen property. The trial court erred in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2472 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Okello Muleka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 73 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- DA Onyancha
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Burden of Proof, Identification Evidence
- 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
Moses Okello Muleka
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of robbery with violence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the appellant was properly identified as a participant in the robbery.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, connecting the appellant to the offence of robbery with violence. No witness identified the appellant as a participant in the robbery, and nothing was recovered from him that could be linked to the stolen property. The trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on suspicion arising from his relationship with the principal accused and his alleged purchase of items with suspected stolen money. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was therefore unsafe. The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and the sentence set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed and sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT BUSIA
CRA NO.73 OF 2006
(Appeal from original BSA PM CR. No.906/2004)
MOSES OKELLO MULEKA...................................................................................APPELLANT
~VRS~
REPUBLIC............................................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant Moses Okello Muleka was charged and convicted with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. He then lodged this appeal against the conviction.
In his petition of appeal the Appellant contends that the case as not proved as required by the law. The procedure of tendering the exhibits by the prosecutor was wrong and that the burden of proof was shifted to him. The Appellant stated that the magistrate denied him the opportunity to cross-examine his co-accused.
The state did not oppose the appeal on grounds that there was no evidence to connect the Appellant with the offence of robbery. The Appellant only benefited from the property stolen by his father.
We have perused the evidence on record. PW1 testified that he was a worker in a wholesale shop at Busia. On the material day he was robbed of cash Ksh.316,700/= which he was taking to the bank. He identified Francis Oduori Muleka as one of his assailants. Francis was the 1st accused in the trial while the Appellant was the 2nd accused. PW1 did not mention the Appellant herein in connection with the robbery.
The other witnesses did not witness the incident. PW5 is the police officer who received the robbery report at Busia Police Station. He was only given the name of Francis Muleka as a suspect. He arrested Francis on 24/04/2004 which was five (5) days after the robbery. PW5 visited the home of Francis Muleka at Mundika in the course of his investigations. He recovered cash Ksh.4,100/= from the person of Francis and Ksh.1000/= from his house.
There were receipts of a few items bought by the Appellant in the home. The Appellant was the son of Francis Muleka. PW5 charged the Appellant with the offence jointly with his father Francis. However, there was no evidence to connect the Appellant with the robbery. There is no witness who said he/she saw the Appellant at the material time. Nothing connected to the robbery was recovered from the Appellant.
The Appellant denied the offence. He presented an alibi in respect of the material date. The trial court convicted the Appellant on the basis that he had purchased several items using money suspected to be part of the stolen cash and kept the items in his sister’s house.
The magistrate did not consider that there was no evidence of identification or direct recent possession regarding the recovery from the Appellant. The offence of robbery with violence is a serious one and the trial magistrate should have satisfied himself that all ingredients were proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there was not an iota of evidence to connect the appellant with the offence. The conviction was therefore unsafe.
We find the appeal merited and allow it accordingly. The conviction is hereby quashed and sentence set aside. The appellant is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
…………………………..………………………..
D. A. ONYANCHAF. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGEJUDGE
Judgment dated and delivered in open court this 8th day of June 2011 in the presence of appellant and state councel.
……………………………..
D. A. ONYANCHA
JUDGE