[2022] KEHC 13984 (KLR)

Republic v Langat & another (Criminal Case 19 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 13984 (KLR) (17 October 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13984 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Bomet

Criminal Case 19 of 2020

RL Korir, J

October 17, 2022

Between

Republic

Prosecutor

and

Charles Langat

1st Accused

Leonard Langat

2nd Accused

Judgment

1. Charles Langat and Leonard Langat (1st and 2nd Accused Respectively) were charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They were alleged to have murdered Nicholas Kipngeno Langat on 29th August, 2020 at Ngeriet village in Ngeriet sub-location, Konoin Sub-County within Bomet County. The two Accused and the deceased were brothers.

2. The two accused denied the charge and the matter went to trial which commenced on 24th November, 2021 when one witness testified. Subsequently, Mr. Koske, defence counsel informed the court that the defence wished to plea bargain with the prosecution. This court stayed further trial to enable the parties’ plea bargain.

3. On 16th March, 2022, defence counsel Mr. Kipngetich told the court that the 1st accused did not wish to plea bargain. The learned prosecutor also submitted that the State h ad reviewed the file and had found no clear evidence against the 1st accused. They subsequently presented a nolle proseque which was considered and accepted by the court. The case against the 1st accused terminated while that against the 2nd accused proceeded.

4. The parties reached a plea Agreement which was duly executed and filed on 21st June, 2022 wherein the State reduced the charge to that of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The Accused pleaded guilty.

5. The facts of the case as read by the Prosecution Counsel follows:-“The brief facts of the case is that on the 23rd day of August,2020 at around 2200hrs, the accused person, Charles Langat and the deceased, who are all brothers, were at their father’s homestead arguing over selling a piece of land which the accused person was proposing to be sold while the deceased opposed. Charles Langat was listening keenly. Immediately the accused took a wooden rod from below the bed and started assaulting the deceased. Eye witnesses present pleaded with them to solve the matter the following day as it was already at night and they were creating unnecessary commotion. The accused kept saying the deceased had been a problem to them all along.The deceased ran outside for safety while the accused followed him saying, “Let me kill him.” He took a metal rod and hit the deceased. The deceased was hospitalized on the 24th day of August, 2020 and on 29th day of August, 2020, he succumbed while undergoing treatment.Post mortem was carried out on the 10th day of September, 2020 by the government pathologist where he stated the cause of death as blunt trauma and fatal assault.”

6. The Accused accepted the facts as true and was consequently convicted of the offence of manslaughter on his own plea of guilty. The Court called for a pre-sentence probation officers report and the same filed on 27th July, 2022.

7. At the sentence hearing on 21st September, 2022 Mr. Kipngetich learned defence counsel submitted that the accused and the deceased were brothers and both were drunk at the time they fought. That the accused was remorseful and had sought forgiveness from his family which was accepted. Counsel urged the court to consider the circumstances of the offence as contained in the probation officers report and even from the statement of the one witness who testified. He urged the court to grant a non-custodial sentence since the family had forgiven him and was willing to reintegrate him. That he was not a risk to the community. Counsel further informed the court that the accused’s father was present in court and wished to address the court.

8. The court, in line with Section 9 of the Victim Protection Act 2014, granted audience to the Accused’s father one Peter Kiplangat Terer. He told the court that the family had partially conducted the traditional reconciliation ceremony and was waiting for the release of the Accused so as to complete the cleansing. He pleaded with the court to release the Accused as he, (the father) had already lost one son (the deceased) and was traumatized by the prospect of losing another son to jail.

9. On his part, Learned Counsel Mr. Njeru for the State submitted that the Accused had no previous criminal record, and left the matter to the discretion of the court.

10. I have taken into consideration the mitigation offered by the Accused and circumstances of the offence. I have also considered the purposes of sentencing as articulated in The Judiciary Policy Sentencing Guidelines, 2014. These include:-i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.ii.Deterrence: to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.iii.Rehabilitation: to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.iv.Restorative justice: to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages.v.Community protection: to protect the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation: to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.

11. 11. In this case the Accused savagely assaulted his brother (the deceased) over disagreement concerning a proposed sale of the family land which the deceased opposed. No doubt the accused is now remorseful and has been forgiven by his family as stated by his father. Human life must however count for something and a non-custodial sentence would in this case send the wrong signal that a person can terminate the life of their brother so as to have their way in dealing with the family property. A deterrent sentence would therefore be appropriate.

12. I have considered that the accused saved the court precious judicial time by plea bargaining. I have also taken into consideration the plea of the victims. In arriving at the sentence, I have also taken into account that the accused has been in pre-trial custody for 2 years. I decline the plea for a non-custodial sentence owing to the manner in which the Accused savagely attacked his brother, the deceased. It is my conviction that a lenient custodial sentence will aid in his rehabilitation. The lenient sentence would also allow the victims to undertake the reconciliation which they so value and find closure.

13. The Accused is sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment from today.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022. ..........................R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGEJudgement delivered in the presence of Mr. Njeru for the State, Mr. Kipngetich for the Accused and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).