[2020] KEHC 64 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant, having failed to appeal against his conviction or sentence, is precluded by Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code from seeking revision of the sentence. The grounds advanced by the applicant, including his status as a first offender, reconciliation with the victim's family,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 64 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Mukundi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 110 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Sexual Offences, Victim Impact Reports
- 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
Peter Mukundi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain an application for revision of sentence where the applicant did not appeal the conviction or sentence.
- 2 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant qualify as grounds for revision under the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the victim impact assessment report can influence the outcome of a revision application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having failed to appeal against his conviction or sentence, is precluded by Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code from seeking revision of the sentence. The grounds advanced by the applicant, including his status as a first offender, reconciliation with the victim's family, and the victim impact report, do not constitute valid grounds for revision under the law. The court found that the trial magistrate acted within the law in convicting and sentencing the applicant and that the application for revision was misconceived and devoid of merit. The proper remedy for the applicant would have been to file an appeal, which he failed to do. Accordingly,...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 110 OF 2020
PETER MUKUNDI.........................................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant herein has moved this court for revision of sentence. He was arrested and charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 in Criminal Case No. 11 of 2006, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Embu. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment on the 23rd day of February, 2018.
2. In his application, he has relied on the grounds that being a first offender, he is entitled and qualified to all the benefits of law as enshrined in Article 27(1)(2), 50(2)(p) and 51(1) of the Constitution; that he is entitled and qualified to the least severe punishment as prescribed by the law; that the court be pleased to apply Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to inform itself as to the sentence or order to impose and/or make and that during the commission of the offence, the applicant was not mature enough unlike today when he is aware of all the consequences of crime.
3. In his submissions, he stated that, at the time he committed the offence, both the complainant and himself were almost age mates and the applicant was totally deceived by the victim’s physical appearance and he believed that she was an adult. That he regrets having committed the offence.
4. It was his further submission that both his family and that of the victim have since reconciled.
5. The respondent opposed the application vide a replying affidavit sworn by Leah Mati a Senior Prosecution Counsel on the 7th day of October, 2020. She avers that the applicant has not set out the grounds of revision as required by the law and that this matter does not fall under the legitimate requirements for revision.
6. It was further deposed that the trial magistrate was within the law in convicting the applicant and sentencing him in accordance with the law without referring the matter for alternative dispute resolution as proposed by the applicant. The deponent who is the counsel for the respondent, contended that the application is misconceived as the contents of the supporting affidavit should have been relayed to the trial magistrate as mitigating factors. She submitted that the offence is serious and the sentence imposed on the applicant is reasonable.
7. The court has considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the submissions of the parties. Before the application proceeded for hearing, the applicant asked the court to consider the victim’s impact report and following his request, the court ordered for a report and the same was availed to the court.
8. The powers of the High Court on revision are provided for under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides as follows: -
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.
9. The court has noted that upon conviction, the applicant herein did not prefer an appeal against either the sentence or the conviction or both. Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: -
(5) When an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the insistence of the party who could have appealed.
10. It is therefore clear that where an appeal lies against conviction and/or sentence and a party fails to exercise his right of appeal, such a party is precluded from filing an application for revision of sentence.
11. The court has perused the contents of the victim impact assessment report filed in court on the 28th September 2020, and has noted that the victim is a young adult who is currently taking care of a 3-year-old child on her own. She still harbours a bit of resentment towards the applicant not for the offence but his initial denial to the offence.
12. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondent, in the face of the clear provisions of the law as provided for in the criminal procedure code, the report cannot come to the aid of the applicant for the reasons that the grounds he has advanced in the application are not grounds for revision. His remedy lay in appeal and he failed to exercise that right.
13. In the premises, I find that the application is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed.
Delivered, dated and signedatEmbu this 9th day of December, 2020.
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
...............................................for the Appellant
............................................for the Respondent