https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6942

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA** **HCCR NO. E015 OF 2022** **ELIPHAS MUREITHI PETER………………….APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC………………………………......RESPONDENT** **RULING ON SENTENCE** 1. Eliphas Mureithi Peter (Accused) was charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code in that on 22nd May, 2021 at Muragara Sub-location Kaare Location in Maara Sub-County within Tharaka Nithi County unlawfully murdered Peter Mucheke. The accused person denied the charge. 2. After a full trial, Gitari J. vide a judgement issued on 25th March 2025 convicted the Accused as charged. I took over the matter at the sentencing hearing and received the submissions of the partis in mitigation. 3. Mr. Wakoko, learned defence Counsel submitted that the Accused accepted his mistake and was remorseful. That before the incident, he was living well with the family. That his mother had since passed away while he (Accused) was in prison; and now the Accused’s wife, who was already orphaned had no one else. 4. Counsel further submitted that the Accused had school going children who faced the threat of dropping out of school because of lack of fees. 5. On the rehabilitation of the Accused, Counsel stated that the Accused had reformed having undergone various programs in remand including bible studies in which he had graduated with a diploma in 2025. That the Accused prayed for a second chance and a lenient sentence in order to take care of his children. 6. On their part the Prosecution made extensive submissions on the impact of the Accused’s offence on his extended family. Learned Prosecution Counsel Rukunga stated that the deceased was an old man aged 76 years, a husband and a father of 10 children including the Accused. That he lost his life in the hands of his son. That the Accused’s mother was ailing and in deep grief over the loss of her husband and the Accused had also deprived his siblings the joy of having their father alive. 7. Counsel urged for a deterrent custodial sentence. 8. A pre-sentence report was filed in court on 30th April 2025. The report on the one part states that the Accused denies having killed the father attributing his death to an accident while on the other hand it states that the offender accepts the court’s verdict and pleads for mercy. 9. With respect to victim impact, the report states that the deceased’s wife (now recently deceased) was devastated by the loss of her husband. With respect to the Accused’s siblings, the report states that they had come to terms with the loss of their father and had forgiven Accused whom they were willing to reintegrate back into the family should the court grant him a non-custodial sentence. 10. I have considered the mitigation as outlined above. I have also considered the purposes of sentencing as set out in the Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines. They include Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Restorative justice, community protection and Denunciation. 11. A sentence must be commensurate with the offence. In the case of **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.”*** 1. In this case the Accused was found to have drowned his father in a pool of water within the homestead. The Accused persists that the deceased drowned as an accident, implying that he was not remorseful for his action. His siblings though, being the remaining victims, have forgiven him which is a mitigating factor. He has also undergone some rehabilitation in prison as he has been in remand custody since 23rd August 2022. 2. This action was utterly cruel as the old man was helpless and hapless. He was his father who had raised him together with his other siblings. There was no explanation for the callous act. 3. Having taken all factors into consideration, I sentence the Accused to serve 15 years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall be deemed to run from 23rd August 2022 being date of his pre-trial and post-judgement custody. 4. The Accused has 14 days’ right of appeal against conviction and sentence. Orders accordingly. **Ruling delivered, dated and signed at Chuka this 22nd day of May, 2026.** **..........................** **R. LAGAT - KORIR** **JUDGE** **Ruling delivered in the presence of Ms. Musili holding brief, Mr. Wakoko for the Accused and Ms Rukunga for the State; Muriuki (Court Assistant)**