[2012] KEHC 3364 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's mitigation was not plausible given the premeditated and harmful nature of the offence, which involved drugging the complainant's cousin to facilitate the theft. The sentence of three years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum of fourteen years and was not excessive. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3364 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Regina Anyango John; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 18 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Stealing in Dwelling House, Handling Stolen Goods, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Regina Anyango John
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to stealing in a dwelling house, was excessive or warranted mitigation.
- 2 Whether the appellant's mitigation and personal circumstances justified a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's mitigation was not plausible given the premeditated and harmful nature of the offence, which involved drugging the complainant's cousin to facilitate the theft. The sentence of three years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum of fourteen years and was not excessive. The court declined to interfere with the sentence, holding that the period served should serve as a time for the appellant's reformation. The appeal was dismissed as there was no legal basis for reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of three years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KISUMU
Criminal Appeal 18 of 2012
REGINA ANYANGO JOHN …………………………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………..……………………RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case number 931 of 2011 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Winam – Mr. C. N. Sindani Esq.)
JUDGMENT
The appellant and another were charged with the offence of stealing in a dwelling house contrary to Section 279 (b) of the Penal Code.
The particulars are that on the 3rd September 2011 at about 3:00 a.m. at Okore estate in Kisumu West District within Nyanza Province jointly stole one T.V. make Orion, DVD Player make L. G., one cylinder gas make Kobil, one iron box all valued at Kshs. 29,900 the property of Jackson Wahome from the dwelling house of the said Jackson Wahome.
The Alternative charge was Handling stolen goods, contrary to Section 322 (1) (2) of the Penal Code.
The particulars are that on the 3rd day of September 2011 at about 5:00 a.m. at Mamboleo junction Kisumu East District within Nyanza Province jointly otherwise than in the course of stealing dishonesty retained a 21 inch T.V. make Orion, DVD player L.G, a gas cylinder and an electric iron box knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen goods.
The appellant on his own plea of guilty was sentence to serve three (3) years imprisonment. She has then filed this appeal citing the following grounds:-
1. That I pleaded guilty to the charge praying for leniency
2. That I was treated as first offender and your lordship the sentence imposed on me is rather on the higher side.
3. That my husband passed away and left me with two children of which I was the only support to them.
4. That I am too – remorseful and repentant hence praying that may this honourable court consider my mitigations and give me a second chance since I believe in the wise saying that once bitten twice shy and promise to be a good citizen.
Basically, the above grounds are mitigation to say the least I have perused the proceedings and in particular the facts. It is apparent that the appellant together with her accomplice executed well their plan. This they did by drugging the complainant’s cousin.Having left him unconscious she went away with the complainant’s household items.
The drugging of the complainant’s cousin was not something done without a certain degree of preparedness and carefully planned execution. The appellant’s action was to ensure that by all means she should never be found or arrested.
I do not therefore think that the appellant’s mitigation are plausible. Her action were meant to harm someone. She planned the scheme very well. I shall not therefore review the sentence. The relevant section provides for upto fourteen (14) years imprisonment with hard labour. I shall not enhance and I suppose that the period served shall serve as a useful time for her to reform.
The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 9thday of July 2012
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………………State Counsel
…………………………….………… Appellant