[2023] KEHC 19080 (KLR)

Republic v Chenya (Criminal Case 19 of 2016) [2023] KEHC 19080 (KLR) (21 June 2023) (Sentence)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 19080 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Kitale

Criminal Case 19 of 2016

AC Mrima, J

June 21, 2023

Between

Republic

State

and

Sammy Anguruke Chenya

Accused

Sentence

1. The accused was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and a trial was conducted. He was eventually found guilty of murder.

2. The Court received mitigations and called for a Pre-Sentence Report for purposes of sentencing.

3. This Court is well abreast of the principles on sentencing and the 2016 Judiciary of Kenya Sentencing Policy Guidelines. As stated by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR, despite their importance, the guidelines do not replace judicial discretion. This is what the Apex Court stated: -(72)We wish to make it very clear that these guidelines in no way replace judicial discretion. They are advisory and not mandatory. They are geared to promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing hearings. They are also aimed at promoting public understanding of the sentencing process.

4. The purpose of sentencing is expounded in page 15, paragraph 4. 1 of the Sentencing Policy Guidelines as follows: -Sentences are imposed to meet the following objectives:1. Retribution: To punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.2. Deterrence: To deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.3. Rehabilitation: To enable the offender reform from his criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person.4. Restorative justice: To address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages. Criminal conduct ordinarily occasions victims’, communities’ and offenders’ needs and justice demands that these are met. Further, to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender’s contribution towards meeting the victims’ needs.5. Community protection: To protect the community by incapacitating the offender.6. Denunciation: To communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.

5. In sentencing, the Court considers various mitigating factors. Some include: -(a)age of the offender;(b)being a first offender;(c)whether the offender pleaded guilty;(d)character and record of the offender;(e)commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence;(f)remorsefulness of the offender;(g)the possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender;(h)any other factor that the Court considers relevant.

6. In this case, the Accused has a history of anger management challenges. His conduct is also captured in the Pre-Sentence Report. His attitude to the offence as well as the views of the local community administrators are on record.

7. The accused killed the deceased on suspicion of a love affair with his wife. The allegations were, however, not proved, but even if proved do not warrant the taking of another person’s life.

8. This is a case where the accused has to be aided to reform. Given his temperamental and non-caring nature, he may not qualify for a non-custodial sentence even though he is aged 60 years old.

9. It is also the position that the fatal injuries were occasioned in a fight. The deceased suffered 8 deep cuts on his head which went right into the brain. That was so brutal of the accused.

10. By considering the totality of the above coupled with the need to strike a balance between the victim’s family and the accused, coupled with the recommendations in the Pre-Sentence Report, this Court finds that this is not a case deserving a non-custodial sentence.

11. Consequently, the following sentence is hereby rendered: -a.The accused is hereby sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment.b.The sentence shall run as from December 28, 2016 when the accused was first arraigned before this Court.c.File marked as Closed.

12. Orders accordingly.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023. A. C. MRIMAJUDGESentence delivered in open Court in the presence of:Bikundo, Learned Counsel for the Accused.Miss. Kiptoo, Learned Prosecutor instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State.Regina/Chemutai – Court Assistants.Sentence – Kitale High Court Criminal Case No. 19 of 2016 Page 4 of 4