[2022] KEHC 9839 (KLR)

Republic v Langat (Criminal Case 6 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 9839 (KLR) (18 July 2022) (Sentence)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 9839 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Bomet

Criminal Case 6 of 2018

RL Korir, J

July 18, 2022

Between

Republic

Prosecution

and

Mercy Chepngetich Langat

Accused

Sentence

1. The Accused was charged with Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on April 14, 2018 at Chebirbelek Trading Centre in Sotik sub-county within Bomet County, murdered Wesley Kipngeno Yegon.

2. At the conclusion of the trial, the court convicted the Accused of the lesser offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.

3. At the Sentencing hearing on June 27, 2022, Ms. Chemutai learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was deeply remorseful as she had learnt from her mistake. That she would never engage in any confrontation with any one again if released. That she was born again. Counsel submitted that the Accused’s family depended on her and was suffering in her absence. Counsel submitted further that the Accused had spent some time in pre-trial custody. She prayed for leniency and urged the court to consider the time the accused did spent in pre-trial custody.

4. The Accused addressed the court and implored that the court sympathizes with her because, both her child and aged mother were suffering.

5. Prosecution Counsel, Ms. Boyon on her part asked the court to treat the accused as a first offender.

6. Prior to sentencing, the court called for a pre-sentence probation officers report and a victim impact statement.

7. The purposes of sentencing as summarized in the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines at paragraph 4. 1 are: -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 or 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.These purposes are not exclusive in themselves and their application is dependent on the unique circumstances of each.

8. The principles governing sentencing are outlined in paragraph 23. 8 on page 49 of the Policy Guidelines. They further suggest mitigating circumstances as follows: -“23. 8. Mitigating circumstances warrant a more lenient penalty than would be ordinarily imposed in their absence. They include: -1. A great degree of provocation.2. Commitment to repairing the harm caused by the offender’s conduct evidenced by the actions such as compensation, reconciliation and restitution prior to conviction.3. Negligible harm or damage caused.4. Mental illness or impaired functioning of the mind.5. Age, where it affects the responsibility of the individual offender.6. Playing of a minor role in the offence.7. Being a first offender.8. Remorsefulness.9. Commission of a crime in response to gender-based violence.10. Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and cooperation with the prosecution and the police.

9. I have considered the circumstances of the case. This court is substituting the charge from murder to that of manslaughter, took into consideration the fact that the Accused may have been provoked by the deceased. The Court however observed that even after being restrained the Accused followed the deceased outside and stabbed him.

10. The Pre-Sentence Probation Officer’s report filed in court on July 6, 2022 stated that the accused was 25 years old and had a child now aged 6 who is now under the care of his grandmother who ekes out a living on a 0. 3-acre piece of land at her parents’ home. That the accused denied the stabbing the deceased saying that he fell on a knife when she pushed him but that she nonetheless expressed remorse and prays for leniency.

11. The Victim Impact Statement Report described the relationship between families of the accused and deceased as hostile. That the deceased’s relatives were still bitter with the loss and were unwilling to reconcile despite the best effort by community leaders.

12. I have considered that the accused has stated that she was remorseful though she insists that she did not stab the deceased. Her remorse therefore cannot be sincere. I have also considered that the victims of the offence were crying for justice aggrieved that the deceased left behind a young widow with two minor children.

13. The duty of this court is to mete out an appropriate sentence having taken all circumstances into considerations. I do not find a non-custodial sentence appropriate in this case. It is my conviction that the accused shall benefit from rehabilitation through serving a custodial sentence.

14. The Accused shall serve 12 years imprisonment. This custodial sentence does not preclude her family from seeking reconciliation with the deceased’s family to foster harmonious living as neighbours. The sentence shall run from date of first arrest and arraignment being April 14, 2018. Orders accordingly.

RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. ..................................R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Accused, Mr. Waweru holding brief Muriithi for the State, Ms. Chirchir holding brief Ms. Chemutai for the defence, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant)