[2014] KEHC 2684 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence linking the accused persons to the death of the deceased. There was no evidence regarding the circumstances of the death, the cause of death, or any connection between the accused and the alleged offence. The only evidence presented was from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2684 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Alfama Mukami Njagi; Defendant: John Mwiti Mucheeke
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 96 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Whether to Place Accused on Their Defence
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Acquittal, Criminal Procedure, Evidence Requirements
- 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
Applicant
Alfama Mukami Njagi
Defendant
John Mwiti Mucheeke
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Whether to Place Accused on Their Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish the accused persons' involvement in the death of the deceased.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was caused by an unlawful act or omission by the accused persons.
- 3 Whether the accused should be placed on their defence based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence linking the accused persons to the death of the deceased. There was no evidence regarding the circumstances of the death, the cause of death, or any connection between the accused and the alleged offence. The only evidence presented was from the deceased's parents, who were informed of their son's death but did not witness the incident or provide any information implicating the accused. The prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused persons under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, giving them the benefit of doubt at this stage.
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused persons are acquitted of the offence of murder under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused persons are to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2009
LESIIT, J
REPUBLIC………………….………......................PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
ALFAMA MUKAMI NJAGI...........................…1ST ACCUSED.
JOHN MWITI MUCHEEKE.............................2ND ACCUSED.
RULING
The First Accused ALFAMA MUKAMI NJAGI and the second accused John Mwiti Mucheke, are jointly charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on the 25th day of November 2009 at Nguruki Market Iruma Sub location in Maara District within Eastern Province jointly with another murdered Lawrence Murithi.
The prosecution called only two witnesses, the mother and father of the deceased as PW1 and 2 respectively.
The evidence of both prosecution witnesses was similar. They testified that on the 25th November 2009, at around midnight both were asleep in their home when they were woken up by one Kithinji and one Rena. The two witnesses testified that they were informed that their son Lawrence Muriithi had been stabbed.
PW1 and 2 stated that they accompanied the one who brought them the sad news to a place called Nguruki. There they found the dead body of the deceased with a stab wound on the chest. The two then reported to the Chief and then to the police.
No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution in this case. There is no evidence to show how the deceased met his death. There is no evidence to show why the accused persons were arrested or how they are involved in the death of the deceased.
The prosecution has the burden and evidence of proof in this case. It was the duty of the prosecution to adduce evidence to establish that the accused persons with one common intention to cause either death or grievous harm to the accused attacked and inflicted injuries on the deceased as a result of which he died.
Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, we have no evidence to show what caused the death of the deceased. The burden is not just to prove death, even though that is important. The burden on the prosecution is to show that the deceased death was not caused by natural causes but through foul play.
The Prosecution failed to prove this because no evidence was adduced to show how deceased met his death, and secondly no evidence was adduced to show the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission by the accused persons.
No evidence was adduced to show the circumstances which led to the accused arrest or how they were connected to deceased death.
Having considered the evidence adduced in this case I find that there is no iota of evidence to establish that the deceased died due to deceased unlawful act or omission, and that the act or omission was executed by both with an intention to either cause death or grievous harm on the deceased or another.
I find that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence against the accused that would warrant the court to place the accused persons on their defence. Consequently I give the accused persons the benefit of doubt and acquit them of the offence at this stage under S.306 of the CPC.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.
LESIIT J.
JUDGE