[2017] KEHC 8464 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony of the accused assaulting the deceased, medical evidence of fatal injuries, and investigative findings, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Bhatt v R [1957] EA...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8464 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Antony Khanyaha Situeti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 37 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- accused put on his defence
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, 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
Applicant
Antony Khanyaha Situeti
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to require him to be put on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced links the accused to the offence of murder as charged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony of the accused assaulting the deceased, medical evidence of fatal injuries, and investigative findings, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of murder against the accused. Applying the standard set out in Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, the court held that the accused must be put on his defence as there is evidence on record which, if believed, would support a conviction. The accused was therefore called upon to indicate how he wished to proceed with his defence, in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
accused put on his defence
Orders
- The accused is called upon to make his defence as provided under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 37 OF 2014
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………….PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
ANTONY KHANYAHA SITUETI………………………………….ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. On 14th July, 2014 the accused appeared before the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable court pending production before a Judge for plea. He is charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars are that on the 6th day of July, 2014 at Bulukhombe Village, Mahanga Sub-location Shavirunga location in Hamisi Sub- County within Vihiga County, murdered Thomas Savala Situeti. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge when he appeared before Honourable Mr. Justice A.C. Mrima on 16th September, 2014.
2. The hearing of the case started on 27th July, 2016. The prosecution called 5witnesses in its effort to prove the charge against the accused. The main prosecution witness was Joseph Sabara Sakayo who testified as PW1. He stated that on the night of 6th July, 2014 at about 8. 00pm, he saw the accused herein assaulting the deceased; using a spade, [parts of which were produced as PExhibits 1 and 2 respectively.] Sabara testified that his pleas to the accused to leave the deceased alone fell on deaf ears as accused also threatened to kill him as well. The deceased and Sabara are brothers, while the accused is son to the deceased. He left them the way he found them.
3. In the morning, Sabara found the deceased lying on the bed covered with a blanket. He was dead. A report was made to the village elder, Loys Mmbone Luyeka, PW2. The accused also made a report of the incident to PW2 who informed the Assistant Chief and the police at Serem Police Station. The deceased’s body was removed to Vihiga County Hospital Mortuary. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. Emurundi. The post mortem report was produced by Dr. David Akaliche of Vihiga District Hospital. According to the report the deceased had multiple bruises over the left orbital region and left costal and left hip region. There was also a deep cut wound on the cranial aspect.
4. Internally, there was fibrosis in the respiratory system with fracture of the left 3rd – 7th ribs. In the doctor’s opinion, the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest due to massive haemorrhage. The post mortem report was produced as PExhibit 1.
5. I have considered the above evidence as well as the evidence of Seth Nandwa Jiveti PW3 as well as that of No. 71799 CPL Gilbert Ekirapa who is also the Investigating Officer and who testified as PW5. The question that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring the accused person to be put on his defence. Miss Rauto who appears for the accused did not make any submissions on the issue.
6. From the evidence on record, and applying the principles enunciated in the case of Bhatt – vs – R[1957]EA 332. I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence. Section 306(2) gives accused the libertyto give sworn evidence or to give an unsworn statement. In either case, he is at liberty to call witnesses. If he gives sworn evidence, he may be asked questions both by the State and the Court. He may also choose to remain silent and let the court decide the case on the evidence before it.
7. The accused may now indicate to the court how he proposes to proceed with his defence.
Orders accordingly,
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega on this 21st day of February 2017
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
Miss Tarus (present)……………………………for state
Miss Shirika for Rauto (present)………………for accused
Mr. Polycap…………………………………….Court Assistant.