[2017] KEHC 2929 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2929 (KLR)

The court found that there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the murder of the deceased. The only eyewitnesses did not identify the accused at the scene, and the alleged threats made by the accused were not substantiated by police reports or credible testimony. The prosecution failed to investigate exculpatory evidence, such as the accused's alibi. The court held that to put the accused on his defence would be tantamount to asking him to prove his innocence, which is impermissible. Consequently, the accused was found not to have a case to answer and was acquitted under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 2929 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Caleb Owino Obongo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 October 2017
Case Number
Criminal Case 40 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
acquittal
Judges
EM Muchoki
Legal Topics
Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Prima Facie Case Burden of Proof Circumstantial Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Caleb Owino Obongo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
  2. 2 Whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the murder of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the murder of the deceased. The only eyewitnesses did not identify the accused at the scene, and the alleged threats made by the accused were not substantiated by police reports or credible testimony. The prosecution failed to investigate exculpatory evidence, such as the accused's alibi. The court held that to put the accused on his defence would be tantamount to asking him to prove his innocence, which is impermissible. Consequently, the accused was found not to have a case to answer and was acquitted under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Court Disposition

acquittal

Orders

  • The accused is found not guilty and acquitted under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.