[2022] KEHC 12527 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on hearsay evidence from PW1 and PW3, neither of whom witnessed the alleged murder. The purported eyewitnesses were not called to testify, and no direct evidence linked the accused to the crime. The court emphasized that a prima facie case requires evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12527 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic (DPP); Defendant: Maurice Wesonga Ongeche
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 77 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- acquittal at close of prosecution case (no case to answer)
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Hearsay Evidence, Burden of Proof
- 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
Republic (DPP)
Applicant
Maurice Wesonga Ongeche
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether hearsay evidence without direct eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction for murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on hearsay evidence from PW1 and PW3, neither of whom witnessed the alleged murder. The purported eyewitnesses were not called to testify, and no direct evidence linked the accused to the crime. The court emphasized that a prima facie case requires evidence that, if unchallenged, would support a conviction. In the absence of such evidence, particularly where the only testimony is hearsay and the alleged weapon was not recovered, it would be improper to call upon the accused to defend himself. The court held that placing the accused on his defence would amount to shifting the burden of proof, contrary to established legal...
Court Disposition
acquittal at close of prosecution case (no case to answer)
Orders
- The accused is acquitted of the charge under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Republic (DPP) v Ongeche (Criminal Case 77 of 2015) [2022] KEHC 12527 (KLR) (17 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12527 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Case 77 of 2015
PJO Otieno, J
June 17, 2022
Between
Republic (DPP)
Prosecution
and
Maurice Wesonga Ongeche
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused faces the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the December 26, 2015 at Matende village, Shitari sub-location in Butere district within Kakamega county, he murdered Johnson Otieno Ongede.
2. Having denied the charge and a plea of not guilty entered the prosecution called three witnesses towards proving the case against the accused.
3. PW1 was a resident of the area who was woken up by one Jackson Aswani, a village elder with a report that the accused had killed the deceased. He proceeded to the scene and found the lifeless body of the deceased which body was later collected by police and taken to the mortuary where an autopsy was conducted and the body released to the relatives for interment. In cross examination, he denied having witnessed the attack and reiterated that he acted on the information by the clan elder.
4. PW2 was the pathologist who conducted the autopsy who made a conclusion that the death had been caused by closed head injury secondary to sharp force trauma.
5. PW3 and the last witness was the investigating officer whose evidence was to the effect that upon a report of murder incident his team visited the scene the same night and found body of the deceased lying dead in his house with visible injuries on the head. On inquiry from family members, he received information that the family was celebrating christmas eve when a quarrel arose between the deceased and the accused both of whom were drunk, out of which the accused hit the deceased on the head, the deceased became unconscious and later died. The accused then went at large and was only arrested the following day. There was information that the accused used a rungu to hit the deceased but the weapon of attack was never recovered.
6. From that evidence, the only evidence linking the accused with the death is that of PW1 and PW3. Both were not eye witness and told the court what they had been told by people they called eye witness who were however not called.
7. I consider the evidence by the two witnesses to have been hearsay evidence which cannot by itself without the evidence of the person who witnessed the incident suffice for a conviction.
8. The court having taken the evidence upto the close of the prosecution’s case is mandated to determine whether the prosecution has availed evidence that show, prima facie, that the accused has a case to answer so that he is called upon to defend himself.
9. A prima facie case has been with finality defined to be a case that would support a conviction even if the accused were put on his defence and opts to keep quiet would still support a conviction. Put the other way, a prima facie case is one on which the court would enter a conviction even in the absence of further evidence. It is a case that establishes the guilt of the accused and thus calls for a rebuttal by the accused. It must be the kind if a case that need no help by the accused in filling the gaps left or the doubts created in the mind of the court by the evidence on record.
10. In the context of the evidence in this matter, there was no iota of evidence by the clan elder who reported to PW1 nor was there any evidence by the family members PW3 talked of having recorded statements from.
11. In the absence of any evidence linking the accused with the death of the deceased, it would be futile to place the accused on his defence unless the court was keen to be seen to shift the burden upon the accused to prove his innocence.
12. Accordingly, it is decreed that the accused has no case to answer and is therefore acquitted of the charge under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Let the accused be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
13. Let the surety be discharged and security deposited be released to him.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA, ONLINE, THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022. PATRICK J. O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:N/A for Nyikuli for the AccusedMs. Chala for the StateCourt Assistant: Kulubi