[2019] KEHC 1489 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eyewitness account of the deceased's wife who saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with thick pieces of wood, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons. The court applied the test in Bhatt v Republic [1957]...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1489 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Humphrey Waithaka Macharia; Defendant: John Kamau Macharia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 & 41 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- Accused persons placed on their defence.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Case to Answer, 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
Humphrey Waithaka Macharia
Defendant
John Kamau Macharia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused persons to require them to be put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the three prosecution witnesses is sufficient to warrant an explanation from the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eyewitness account of the deceased's wife who saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with thick pieces of wood, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against both accused persons. The court applied the test in Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332 and determined that the evidence required an explanation from the accused. Consequently, the accused were placed on their defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused persons placed on their defence.
Orders
- Both accused persons are placed on their defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 13 & 41 OF 2012
[FORMERLY NYERI HCCR CASE NO. 14 OF 2012]
REPUBLIC..….........................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
HUMPHREY WAITHAKA MACHARIA..…......…..............................1ST ACCUSED
JOHN KAMAU MACHARIA……………………..………...………....2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. The two accused persons are charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on the 3rd of November 2010 at Kiguru village, Kaganda Sub-Location within Murang’a County, they murdered Esbon Macharia Gichuhi.
3. They pleaded notguilty. The prosecution managed to call only threewitnesses.
4. Learned counsel for the accused and the Republic opted not to file submissions.
5. The two accused persons are sons of the deceased. Their mother Jane Gachambi (PW1) testified that on the material day, she saw both accused and their elder brother Duncan Gichuhi assaulting the deceased with thick pieces of wood. They were hitting him on the head and hands. The accused fell to the ground but the assault continued.
6. PW1 moved away to a safe distance and started screaming. Some neighbours responded but they were afraid to enter the homestead. She informed the village elder, Stanley Njoroge (PW2). When they returned to the compound, the deceased was dead and the accused had disappeared. His hands were broken; and, he had suffered other injuries on the head, face and mouth.
7. Another of the deceased’s son,Joseph Gacheru (PW3) testified that on 11th November 2010, he identified the body at Muriranjas District Hospital Mortuary for post-mortem purposes. He said the body was later interred.
8. Applying the test in Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332; and, on the digest of the evidence of the three witnesses, I am persuaded that the Republic has established a case requiring an explanation by both accused persons.
9. Accordingly, under the provisions of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I place both accused on their defence.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 29th day of November 2019.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of-
Both accused persons.
Mr. Kamau holding brief for Mr. Mwaniki for both accused persons.
Mr. S. Mutinda for the Republic.
Ms. Dorcas and Ms. Elizabeth, Court Clerks.