[2017] KEHC 6600 (KLR)
The court found that, at the close of the prosecution's case, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge of murder against the 1st to 14th accused persons. The only evidence implicating any accused was the testimony of PW7 and PW8, who identified the 15th accused as being present...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6600 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Dionisia Gitonga Runji; Defendant: 2nd Accused; Defendant: 3rd Accused; Defendant: 4th Accused; Defendant: 5th Accused; Defendant: 6th Accused; Defendant: 7th Accused; Defendant: 8th Accused; Defendant: 9th Accused; Defendant: 10th Accused; Defendant: 11th Accused; Defendant: 12th Accused; Defendant: 13th Accused; Defendant: 14th Accused; Defendant: 15th Accused
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 24 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Partial acquittal; 1st to 14th accused acquitted, 15th accused to be put on defence.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Acquittal, Criminal Procedure, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- english
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
Dionisia Gitonga Runji
Defendant
2nd Accused
Defendant
3rd Accused
Defendant
4th Accused
Defendant
5th Accused
Defendant
6th Accused
Defendant
7th Accused
Defendant
8th Accused
Defendant
9th Accused
Defendant
10th Accused
Defendant
11th Accused
Defendant
12th Accused
Defendant
13th Accused
Defendant
14th Accused
Defendant
15th Accused
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against each accused person to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether there was sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence linking each accused to the murder of the deceased.
- 3 Whether the evidence adduced supports the charge of murder against all or some of the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, at the close of the prosecution's case, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge of murder against the 1st to 14th accused persons. The only evidence implicating any accused was the testimony of PW7 and PW8, who identified the 15th accused as being present and participating in the attack on the deceased. The rest of the accused were only mentioned at a chief's baraza and there was no evidence placing them at the scene or linking them to the offence. Accordingly, the court acquitted the 1st to 14th accused persons under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code and found that only the 15th accused had a case to answer, requiring...
Court Disposition
Partial acquittal; 1st to 14th accused acquitted, 15th accused to be put on defence.
Orders
- The 1st to 14th accused persons are acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The 15th accused is found to have a case to answer and is called upon to give his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2012
REPUBLIC ………......................………....…………….................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
DIONISIA GITONGA RUNJI & 14 OTHERS.....................ACCUSED PERSONS
R U L I N G
The accused persons jointly face the charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. A plea of not guilty was entered for each of the accused persons.
The prosecution called fourteen (14) witnesses in this case. The evidence may be briefly stated. On the 19/06/2012 the deceased who was the Assistant Chief of Machanga sub-location in Mbeere South District of Embu County left his home at around 10. 00 am. to attend a meeting at Kamutuanjiru Primary School. The meeting ended at around 2. 00 pm. and the people dispersed.
The deceased did not return home on the material day. The following day personal articles including a biro pen, spectacles in a yellow case, one shoe, torch, and some maize combs were found on the road near one Murage's home. A trail of blood led the area residents to the river where several body parts identified to be those of the deceased were recovered. The accused persons were subsequently arrested and charged with the offence.
There was evidence that most of the accused persons were mentioned at a chief's baraza and arrested. There was also evidence that there was a long standing dispute between the local administration and a group of people known as “Muturi” who included some of the accused persons and that they had invaded government land and settled on it. This was said to have triggered bad blood between the group and the deceased who was opposed to the group's agenda.
Evidence was also given to the effect that some of the accused persons constantly differed with the deceased who was said to be a law-abiding citizen.
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that none of the witnesses except PW7 (D15) and PW8(D16) saw the accused persons inflict the injuries that caused the death on the deceased. The deceased died of several cuts which resulted into a dismembered body.
The evidence of PW7 and PW8 was that on their way home from Machanga market at around 7. 00 p.m., they found the deceased on the road near one Murage's home surrounded by about 5 men whom they identified by their voices. The men who included 15th accused were armed with pangas and were accusing the deceased of denying them “permits” and constantly calling the police to harass them. The deceased pleaded with them to forgive him and spare his life. The attackers could not heed to the plea and proceeded to slash the deceased with pangas. Some of the men were to later go to the home of PW7 and PW8 where they threatened them with death in the event that they disclosed what they had seen.
The fifteen accused persons were each represented by a counsel. At the close of the prosecution's case the counsels made oral submissions to the effect that a prima facie case to justify calling the accused persons to give their defences had not been established.
I have perused and considered the evidence on record which has been summarised herein. I am of the considered opinion that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the charge against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th accused persons.
As for the 15th accused person, I am satisfied that the evidence on record sufficiently supports the charge against him. I find that he has a case to answer and is hereby called upon to give his defence.
Consequently the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th accused persons are hereby acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is hereby so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
1. Ms. Nandwa for State 2. All accused persons present 3. Mr. Momanyi for 5th Accused 4. Mr. Okwaro for 1st Accused and holding brief for Ms. Njeru for 2nd accused 5. Mr. Gacuba for 13th accused and holding brief for Mr. Mugambi for 3rd Accused 6. Mr. Ithiga for 4th accused and holding brief for Ms. Ndorongo for 7th accused. 7. Mr. Momanyi holding brief for Mr. Nduku for 6th & 11th Accused 8. Ms. Njiru for Fatuma for 8th Accused 9. Mr. Momanyi for Eddie Njiru for 9th Accused 10. Mr. Njoroge for 15th Accused 11. Mr. Njoroge for Ken Githinji for 10th Accused 12. Mr. Ithiga for Kathungu for 12th Accused 13. Ms. Njiru for Kariithi for 14th Accused