[2005] KEHC 2676 (KLR)
The High Court found that the evidence on record clearly established that the appellant committed grievous harm to the complainant in broad daylight, with no possibility of mistaken identity as the parties knew each other well. The complainant's account was corroborated by medical evidence and a clinical officer....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2676 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Phillip Kariuki Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 301 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Sentencing Principles, Appeals Process, Corroboration of 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
Phillip Kariuki Mwangi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for grievous harm was supported by the evidence on record.
- 2 Whether the appellant suffered any prejudice due to the change of trial magistrate and hearing de novo.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the evidence on record clearly established that the appellant committed grievous harm to the complainant in broad daylight, with no possibility of mistaken identity as the parties knew each other well. The complainant's account was corroborated by medical evidence and a clinical officer. The appellant's flight for five years after the incident further supported the inference of guilt. The appellate court held that the trial was properly conducted de novo after transfer to a new magistrate, and the appellant suffered no prejudice. The grounds of appeal were found to lack merit. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was lawful and lenient given the maximum...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction for grievous harm is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2002
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 376 of 2002 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Molo – R. K. Kirui, Esq.)
PHILLIP KARIUKI MWANGI……………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant has appealed against the original conviction and sentence in Senior Resident Magistrate, Molo Criminal Case No. 376 of 2002. In that case, the appellant had been charged for the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. The facts of the prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet are as follows:
“On the 21st March, 1997 at Sirikwa Farm in Nakuru District of the Rift Valley Province, unlawfully did grievous harm to one Solomon Kimani Kamau.”
After a full trial, the appellant was found “guilty” and convicted accordingly. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on 2nd October, 2002. During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant complained that he had been treated unfairly by the Lower Court. Besides the above, the appellant also stated that the complainant never produced the panga that had allegedly been used during the attack despite claiming that he knew where the same was. Apart from the above, he also took issue with the complainant’s assertion that his home was about 30 metres from that of the appellant.
On the other hand, the State through Mr. Gumo, Assistant Deputy Public Prosecutor supported both the conviction and sentence. According to Mr. Gumo, though the case was initially handled by a D. M. II (Prof.), it was later transferred to a Senior Resident Magistrate who heard the case de novo – and hence the appellant never suffered any prejudice. In addition to the above, Mr. Gumo submitted that the incident occurred in 1997 in broad daylight and that the parties knew each other very well. Apart from the above, Mr. Gumo also submitted that the complainant had suffered severe injuries as shown in the Medical Report. In fact, according to Mr. Gumo, the appellant almost killed the complainant. Thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was sufficiently corroborated by that of the PW4. That apart, Mr. Gumo also submitted that after the incident, the appellant fled from the area for about 5 years before he was spotted and arrested.
This Court has carefully perused the above together with the record of appeal that contains the judgment of the learned Magistrate. As the first appellate Court, I have the obligation to re-evaluate and re-examine the evidence afresh and reach an independent conclusion. This Court appreciates and is also alive to the fact that it never had the advantage and opportunity to peruse the manner and demeanour of the witnesses. That apart, this Court also has an obligation to peruse and consider the grounds of appeal – as stated in the case ofOkeno Vs Republic [1972].
From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the incident took place at around 8. 20 a.m. which was broad-daylight. Apart from the above, it is not in dispute that the parties knew each other very well and hence the question of mistaken identity does not arise. The fact that the appellant disappeared for about 5 years clearly show that he was trying to hide from the long arm of the law. The story of the complainant was confirmed and corroborated by the PW3 – Obiero Nisati who was by then a Clinical Officer at Kericho District Hospital.
Having perused the grounds of appeal carefully, I hereby find that the same have no merit at all. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate evaluated the evidence properly and reached the correct conclusion. The conviction is safe and wellmerited and hence I hereby uphold the same.
As far as the sentence is concerned, the maximum provided by the law is life imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence of 5 years is lawful and lenient given the serious injuries that the complainant sustained. In view of the above, I hereby confirm the sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
The upshot is that I hereby dismiss the appeal since the same has no merits at all.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
Judgment read, signed and delivered in open Court in the presence of the appellant and Mr. Gumo, Assistant Deputy Public Prosecutor.
Right of appeal explained.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
31ST MARCH, 2005