https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9700

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA** **HCCR NO. E009 OF 2025** **REPUBLIC ………………………………………………….......PROSECUTOR** **VERSUS** **SAMUEL MALOBA…………………………………..………………ACCUSED** **JUDGEMENT** 1. Samuel Maloba is charged with the offence of murder contrary to **Section 203** as read with **Section 204** of the Penal Code; *“That on the night of 4th and 5th June 2025, at Murende Village in Matayos Sub-county within Busia County, murdered* ***Florence Akinyi Adhiambo****.”* 1. The accused was arraigned on 2nd July, 2025, the Information was read out and the accused pleaded not guilty. 2. On the12th November 2025, the trial commenced with the Prosecution calling its 1st witness and thereafter called eight (8) more witnesses before closing the Prosecution’s case on the 18th February 2026. **Prosecution’s case** 1. **PW 1** Patrick Owamala Agwata a farmer knew Florence Akinyi Adhiambo, a daughter of his brother. That on 15/6/2025, they went to mortuary to help identify body of the deceased, for post mortem. she was with his brother Isaac Ouma Odima. Post mortem was done. they were given copy of post mortem report and were told that she died, she was killed by her husband. 2. In cross examination she could not recall the exact date when the deceased, but it was in June 2025 and was buried a week after post mortem. That there was a police officer and the doctor who did post mortem at Busia Referral Hospital Mortuary. She never knew who beat her or killed her. 3. **PW 2** Meshack Juma recalled that on 5/6/2025 at about 6.00 a.m. he was at home, woke up and prepared to go to school. While on the way, he found someone sleeping. It was a woman. She was lying near their house. he called his mother and asked her to come and see someone lying outside. 4. His mother came out, to see he then left and went to school. At 10.00 a.m., his mother came to call him at school and they went home, and found neighbours and the police. His mother did not tell him why she was calling him from school. 5. When he went back home, he found her (the lady) still lying there. He never knew why she was lying there and what had happened to her. He knew her, she used to live with the Accused. He was not informed what had happened to her. 6. **In cross examination** the witnesses stated that, he goes to Murende Primary School, Madam Violet is their Maths teacher, he is 13 years old, Rose Wafula is the name of his mother. That the deceased was lying at their compound, near the road. It was near their house. he had woken up, and got outside the house. He had bathed and worn his school uniform. When he saw her he was able to identify her. He knew her as Carol. 7. After he called his mother, he left for school. He never knew why carol was lying there and what had happened to her. He did not see whether she had blood. He stood about 10 metres from where she was lying. And could not recall how she was wearing. He knew her as a person with a habit of getting drunk. He saw her lying there in the morning and that she used to drink somewhere down there. He never knew where she used to drink but it was not at the home of Samuel, the Accused. The home of the Accused, would be some distance. 8. His mother came for him at school and they went home. She did not tell him why she came for him in school. They just stayed at home and did not go to school the next day. He could not recall the number of the police officers that he saw. 9. **PW 3** Rose Achieng Juma recalled that on 5/6/2025 at 6.00 a.m. children were preparing to go school and PW 2 was one of them. He called her to come and see Kamwere was lying. She told him to go to school. Kamwere was the Accused. she went out and saw the person. It was abnormal. she sent Michelle to go get liguru. Liguru came, after which he went to report to the chief. The way Kamwere was lying indicated she was dead. The police came, and removed the body. 10. She called Kawara (deceased). She did not respond. witness thought her condition was unusual. She had a swollen free. She used to go out with Samuel. Samuel is in court (points at the dock). We are neighbours, but it is not close. Kawara was lying in their *boma*. 11. In cross-examination the witness said she was called by Meshack and went to see the deceased lying. She was lying on her side. She could see her face, the deceased was wearing a sweater with a hood, and she was covered on the head. She did not see any cuts on her bod and she could see signs of beating on the left arm and left leg. The sweater she was wearing had blood on the neck. 12. The left arm had whip marks. The sweater had been pushed back so I could see arm. The sweater she was wearing had blood on the neck. The left arm had whip marks. The sweater had been pushed back so I could see arm. The sweater was black. She wore a red skirt. The blood was on the sweater, at the neck/shoulder region. She was lying within her boma. The witness could not tell how the deceased got to their boma of who might have assaulted or beaten her. 13. At 10.00 a.m. after the police came they asked her to go and get Meshack from school. Because he was the first to see the deceased lying at the boma. No knife or panga was found at the scene. Not even a stick or whip. The police took pictures of the body of the scene. They removed the body from the scene. She asked them to visit where the deceased used to stay. 14. The witness never saw the sweater and the skirt the deceased was wearing in court. She had not seen the pictures. When she brought Meshack from school, they found many people at the scene. She could not explain how the deceased died only stating that the deceased used to drink alcohol. From her home to where the deceased and Samuel lived was some 4 bomas away. She knew the Accused as Sammy. He came to see the body, at about 8.00 a.m., and left. He came when a crowd had formed. 15. The body was removed by the police at about 1.00 p.m. Sammy went together with the body to Busia, with the police while she remained behind. The police went to where the deceased lived. When the police and the Accused went at her home, they found him at his home. The police went to his home, and came back with him, then they left with the body. The Accused and the deceased had lived together, for a while. Say 5 years. The deceased had children but not with Samuel. Fredrick Ipalata is our liguru. she sent Mitchell to go and call him. 16. **PW 4** Alfred Ouma Ipalata recalled how on the 5/6/2025 he was sleeping at 6.00 a.m. when he was awoken at 6.30 a.m. when a girl came and told him her mother had sent her to call me. That they had found Kawere lying at their home. He went there and found Kawere was dead. With injureis on head and arms. He called his Assistant Chief who asked him to report to the police. The police went to the scene. He only knew the deceased as Kawere and not her full name. he did not see who assaulted her. 17. In cross examination by Mr Were the witness clarified that he is in charge of Marende Kawar and the deceased came from Mudanya B village. That it was a child of PW 3, his in law came to call him. PW 3 is called Rose. She said she had been sent, to call me as Kaware had died. He found Kaware lying there. He did not know what had happened to her. 18. He could not recall how she was wearing, he thought a t-shirt. Deceased had injuries on head, arms and legs, he did not see blood on her body. Her head was not covered. The girl came to call him at 6.30 a.m. At scene there were 3 people – 1, PW 3 and the girl. 19. He saw the body of the deceased; the head was not covered. The t-shirt had no blood. There were beating marks on the head, arms and legs. The marks on the head were on the left, above the ears. Both arms had swelling. Both legs had swellings. The deceased was lying on her right side. he could see both her arms and legs well. He had not seen the clothes she was wearing in court. They were not shown to him. he telephoned the Assistant Chief, David Lenny Wandera and informed him that Kaware was there, and was dead. The Assistant chief instructed him to go to report to the police at Matayos. This was around 8.00 a.m. his role ended there. 20. **PW 5** Isaac Ouma Odima knew Florence Akinyi Adhiambo, her niece, child of her brother. That she died and on the 15/6/2025 she was asked to come to identify the body of the deceased. Post mortem was at Busia County Referral Hospital. It was done at 4.00 p.m., a Sunday. She came with Patrick Agwata, her brother and identified the body, and post mortem was done in her presence. 21. In cross-examination the witness confirmed it is the doctor who did autopsy who can explain the death. That Florence Akinyi and Caroline Akinyi are one and the same. At home they knew her as Florence, where she was married she was also called Caroline and Kaware. They all report to 1 person. She only identified the body not injuries. 22. **PW 6** Wilfrida Ajwang recalled that on 4/6/2025 at 7.00 a.m she was at home heard screams from the neighbour, she heard none of the wife. It was like someone being beaten. Annette had just passed by on way to shop. She decided to go to the shop, and she told her what she was hearing. They went together to where the screams were coming from and they were told to go home. she left Annette there. Annette later came to ask for number of the liguru. In the morning, she saw people passing, Kawere had died at the home of my neighbour. she went there and confirmed that she was dead. I went home. The police came and recorded her statement. 23. That the screams she heard on 4/6/2025 came from the home of the Accused Samuel. Kawere was wife of Samuel. They were married for about 15 years. They had no fights. Samuel is in court (points at the dock). 24. In cross-examination the witness admitted to knowing Samuel for 15 years and the deceased for about 1 year. She could not tell when Samuel married her or when they began cohabiting. That the two were staying together for about 1 year. she did not hear of dowry being paid. There were no children. she did not hear of a Church wedding. They were living together as husband and wife, and she thought they were married. They just lived together. 25. she knew the deceased as Kawere. she did not know of other name. she did not know when deceased died. She was found at the house of Rosemary. Rosemary is a neighbour of Samuel. They are not related. Their homes are about 100 – 200 meters apart. Her home is also near between theirs. They pass her home as they go to Rosemary’s. she did not see Kawere being taken to the home of Rosemary. She never knew how Kawere got there. She heard screams from Kawere once. This was the second time to hear the screams. She did not follow up to establish why deceased was screaming. She did not ask why they were fighting. She did not see Kawere being beaten. 26. The deceased was beaten at her home outside. She only heard screams went there and found them at the door. She found her crying. Witness did not hear the voice of Samuel. When she found her crying, Samuel was present. 27. He had beaten her previously so she assumed he had beaten her. she did not witness her being beaten by Samuel. Samuel had a stick. He was holding it. The stick is in court. The deceased had a red skirt and black top. There was blood on the top, along the shoulder on the left hand, at the place where she died. 28. On the previous day, she went to the home of Samuel but Samuel told her to go. She could not recall how the deceased was dressed. She did not see blood. she was told to go away and she went home woke up at 6.00 a.m. the next day and got report of the death of Kawere at 7.00 a.m. that morning. she just heard people passing and talking about her death and decided to follow them. She could not tell how the deceased left home of Samuel to the home of Rosemary. she found her body at the home of Rosemary and had seen her alive the previous night/evening. she did not see any injury. She was dead the next morning. She was lying on her right hand.the witness did not see her well the previous night, so she cannot tell how she was dressed. she did not make a report to the police. She could not recall when she recorded a statement with the police. maybe 3 or 4 days thereafter. 29. Kawere used to drink alcohol. She was an average drinker. The witness could not tell whether she was drunk on 4/6/2025. she saw her body in the compound of Rosemary. The police came to the scene. She did not see anyone beat the deceased. No one saw the deceased being beaten. There was no one else at that boma. 30. **PW 7** Dr. Bildad Emase of Port Victoria Sub-County Hospital. Recalled that on the 15/6/2025 he conducted post mortem at the Busia County Referral Hospital. Body was naked. Age 37. Good nutrition. Leaving physique. Rigor marks. Multiple bruises on head, limbs. Cut on frontal scalp. Deep cut on right side of the head scalp swelling. Multiple laceration internally the head had clothed blood below the scalp. No fracture. There was subdual haematoma. There was bleeding and swelling of the brain. Opinion that cause of death was severe head injury to blunt head trauma. The multiple soft tissue injuries were secondary. 671245 – death certificate. The post mortem was conducted. he produce PM Report as P.Exhibit No. 1. 31. In cross-examination the witness stated that he is an employee of County Government of Busia. Based at Port Victoria on 15/6/2025. The post mortem was conducted at Busia County Referral Hospital. They do not have a pathologist. He is a Senior Medical Officer, working as a general practitioner yet to specialise, and he can do post mortem. 32. He was contacted by the family to do post mortem, he thinks the family conducted with the Investigating Officer. They are usually paid based on certain guidelines. The Investigating Officer was present. 2 witnesses – Isaac Ouma Odima and Patrick Wamalwa Ongata. The Investigating Officer was PC Nzuki. He did not indicated time of death. It was roughly past one week. Around 9 days. Rigor mortis is stiffening of the muscles. 33. The body was at Busia County Referral Hospital. On 15/6/2025 he got the body there. The cause of death was severe head injury secondary to blunt head trauma. Trauma implies force being impacted, on the head, the object used was probably a club. The force led to injury on the head and brain, which could impact the questions of the drum. The superficial cuts were either by being hit by the club, or use of a sharp object. Multiple soft tissue injuries – based on the head both arms and legs. 34. **PW 8** Annette Akoth Makokha recalled that on the 4/6/2025, at about 7.00 p.m. she had gone to the shops, to buy rice. A neighbour Wilfrida, called, to tell her that there are noises at home. she came home, and I joined Wilfrida to go to her in law, Samuel Maloba. She told us to switch off our torches, and to go away. 35. They went back, she did not know who was with him. She ran back to Wilfrida Ajwang to ask for number of Assistant Chief. She did not have it. she stayed in her house. Samuel Maloba came for fire. They gave him and slept. Next morning, Wilfrida telephoned her to ask whether Kawere also known as Carolilne Maloba, was dead. 36. She left to house of Samuel Maloba to enquire about Kawere. He told her that she did not sleep there. She told him of the telephone she had gotten about Kawere’s death. She went and saw the body of Kawere. Samuel Maloba was at the door of the house. He had a whip. When she saw the whip, and ran away. They had torches. That is how we saw the whip. She did not see Kawere then and only saw the second person. Kawere was her co-wife and they lived in the same compound with Samuel Maloba. she came to that boma in 1995 she found Samuel Maloba there. It has been 20 years since. 37. In cross-examination she stated that she had lived there for 20 years with Samuel Maloba. Kawere was there for about 3 years. She did not see the deceased being beaten and only heard screams. She was with Wilfrida Ajwang who did not see the deceased. Wilfrida was behind me. She cannot tell who the deceased was assaulting. Samuel Maloba had a weapon, as he turned at the door. she never saw it in court. she cannot tell what the deceased was wearing. She cannot recall what he was wearing. 38. she did not see the Accused beat the deceased, nor what he was wearing. Samuel was holding a whip. she did not see the face of the Accused. Wilfrida was behind her. She could not have seen the face of Samuel. The deceased did not die at the door. she was told she was at the house of Roselyne. she did not know how she got there or who did it and why she was killed. 39. **PW 9** No. 25864 PC Dickson Nzuki. Currently at DCI Busia doing investigation, recalled on 5/6/2025, a report was made at Matayos Police Post, by village elder of Murende village, of Matayos. The report was that a dead body was found lying in the homestead of a villager there. 40. After the report, they proceeded to the scene. The scene was documented. The body was collected to Busia County Referral Mortuary. 41. Investigations continued and he was able to collect evidence from witnesses. Their statements were marked. he brought the witnesses to court to testify. 42. From his investigations, he found out that a fight ensued on 4/6/2025 where the Accused assaulted the deceased, who believed to be his wife, by the name Caroline Akinyi, also known as Kawere. While assaulting the deceased, a witness, Wilfrida Ajwang, witnessed it, and she went or followed another witness, Annette Makokha, at a shop, around 7.00 p.m. to accompany her to the place of the incident, and try to intervene, or to stop the fight. When she got her, they both went to the house of the Accused. They found the assault happening at the doorstep. They tried to intervene, but the Accused was so furious, and he chased them away. 43. PW 1 and PW 2 saw that the Accused did not stop the assault. He continued. Wilfrida Ajwang decided to go to house of Annette Makokah, to report from member of the village elder to inform him. She did not get it, so she went back to the house. Later the next morning, on 5/6/2025 around 6.00 a.m. a child, Meshack Juma, was heading to school from their house, he found the body of the deceased, a known serious alcoholic person, lying in their maize farm. The boy went back to inform his mother. The mother was reluctant because she knew the deceased was a drunkard person, but the boy insisted. 44. She went and confirmed that the body was dead. The woman sent another child, Mitchelle Atieno, to go and inform the village elder, Alfred Ipalata. He was informed, came to the scene and found the dead body. He made the report at Matayos Police Post. 45. After the report, they were informed, went to the scene, and documented it. This offence occurred in broad light before witnesses, it is evident that the witnesses tried to intervene, but the Accused was violent, chased them away, and uttered words to effect that “toka hapa, niliwakataza kuja hapa, na Odunga, nyinyi ndio mumebaki”. They are in the statement of Annette. This shows that the Accused did maliciously assault the deceased. 46. The Accused was a known violent person who used to assault the deceased erroneously. Annette said that the violent way of living of the Accused and the deceased. While at scene, the Accused person was just slashing grass a few meters when the officers and by standers were, and he was unmoved by the death of Caroline Akinyi, despite her being his wife. The news had escalated, but the Accuse was not moved. He continued to cut grass. That is where they arrested him. We recovered a wooden shaft. They wish to produce it as the murder weapon. This shaft was identified by Wilfida and Annette as the murder weapon used to assault the deceased. They found the still at the scene collected it, and kept it at the station. He compiled his investigations, and presented the Accused with the charge of murder. The Accused person is in court. he never knew him before. Caroline Akinyi was alleged to be the wife of the Accused. Annette said they overheard the Accused asking the deceased where she had been the whole day. 47. In cross-examination the witness admitted that the scene of the crime was properly assessed. The fight happened at the door step of the house of the Accused, the body was found 150 to 250 metres from the house of the deceased. It was next to the compound of a neighbour. He was aware of Meshack Juma. He said he found the body in a maize farm. The body was lying 10 metres from the house of Meshack Juma. 48. They cannot tell how the body ended up at the maize farm. he did not get the person who dumped the body there. he was not in court when the witnesses testified, but in the statements Wilfrida and Annette saw the assault. Annette is his eye witness. She turned hostile. A warrant of arrest issued for her to come to court to testify. She was not willing to come to testify, but she was willing to give us a statement. 49. It is the village elder who reported the matter to the police. He relied on the statements of Wilfrida and Annette. They claimed they saw the deceased being assaulted. He did not know what the witnesses told the court. 50. They recovered the wooden shaft from the house of the Accused person. It was him who recovered it. They were directed there by the Accused. That they went in the house with the Accused and the neighbours. The Accused did not give us the wooden shaft. They collected the stick, after it was identified by Annette and Wilfrida. 51. Meshack reported the finding of the body to his mother, who said “huyo ni mulevi”. I cannot tell if she was drunk. I did not investigate that. The post mortem did not recall that. No photographs were taken at the scene. Documentation of a scene is not limited to taking of photographs. They did a sketch map, he never knew if it has been produced. The assault took place at 7.00 p.m. on4/6/2025. It was somehow dark, but not so intense. It is possible to identify a person at 7.00 p.m. **DEFENCE CASE** 1. **DW 1** Samwel Peter Maloba stated under oath that he is aged 44 years I.D. No. 23559713, works as a poultry farmer, Chakol, he comes from Matayos Division, Murembe sub-location Mang’oma Location, Matayos sub-county. 2. He recalls on 04/6/2025 he returned home from work at 6 p.m., took one chicken to his neighbour Mark to sell and get supper stayed there until 8 p.m., passed by shop bought soap and went home. It was around 8 p.m. He started putting chicken into their room, went to have a shower and someone lit a torch on him as he was naked showering. He was getting soap from house, walking out. He shouted that the person should switch off the torch. There is a short cut passing behind his house headed to the market. The person with torch was dressed in a ‘dera’. 3. They were 2 people and went back through my brother’s house and went to my in laws house, Annette Makokha. They left. He took shower, took jiko and went to his in law to collect fire and she gave fire. He cooked, ate and slept it was on 4th. 4. On 5th he woke up took slasher to slash grass, saw women passing he never knew them, but they said Kawere was dead. He followed them as she was his girlfriend and got to the scene. She lay along the route, a short cut to their place. The body was near Maria’s house. It was 300 metres from his place, 5 homesteads away. He witnessed, remained standing there, the village is Mundaya. The body was at Madenyi village. 5. The village elder inquired from him and he responded that he had not seen her for 3 days. He left and went to police to report. There were many people. Women started castigating him that he had stuck with a girl and caused her death. Deceased had a husband and 5 children. He was her lover. He never knew what caused her death but she had multiple enemies her husband, don’t know his name. Secondly, her alcohol customer she used to sell alcohol. He had lastly seen her 3 days prior to her death. The rungu exhibit he firstly saw it in court. 6. In cross examination the witnesss indicated that the deceased was his girlfriend since February 2022. He never knew she had a husband and she told him she had 2 children at her mothers. He saw a ‘dera’. He saw they were 2. Yes, next morning he saw passer-by’s and they mentioned she was dead. She was HIV positive. We had gone to the doctor. She was lastly at my place 3 days prior to her death. He saw an injury on forehead, blood and leg were swollen. At foot path at Roseline Wafula. Annette Makokha was at the scene and started accusing him. He could not tell the name of deceased’s husband. The owner of alcohol she was used to sell for. It’s only him they accuse. He never shared information of deceased enemies after her body was discovered. 7. In Re-Examination the witness identified the Deceased as his girlfriend. That he had no reason to kill her. That he had never seen deceased with dera. That he had only seen Wilfrida Ajwang with a dera. Deceased body was not in a dera. Maria is mother in law of Roselyne. That he had no idea why he was accused of killing her. That police came to his house and saw beans soup on floor and arrested him on 5th in his house. **Determination** 1. I have carefully considered all the evidence availed before court the filed submissions and the only issue in question in this case is whether the prosecution have proved whether the accused persons caused the death of the deceased persons and was there actual malice? 2. The offence and punishment for murder is provided for under **Section 203** and **204**of the **Penal Code**. The said provisions provide that; ***“203. Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder.*** ***204. Any person who is convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.”*** 1. To establish the offence of murder, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, proof of death, proof that the death was caused by the accused, by an unlawful act or omission and that, the unlawful act or omission was through malice aforethought. 2. In this instance it is proven that the deceased died and the cause of death was severe head injury to blunt head trauma. It was not a natural death and the same was as a result of physical injuries inflicted upon her. 3. With regards to the requirement of proof that the offence was committed by the accused, no eye witness testimony of seeing the accused assaulting the deceased. 4. In this instance the Identification of the accused as the one who assaulted the deceased was wanting lacking eye witnesses and no evidence of malice aforethought was led by the prosecution. 5. The offence of murder is complete when, “malice aforethought” is established if, pursuant to section 206 of the Penal Code evidence proves any one or more of the following circumstances: ***“(a)*** ***an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not;*** ***(b) Knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused;*** ***(c) An intent to commit a felony;*** ***(d) An intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony.”*** 1. In **Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed and Another v Republic [2018]** e KLR, the Court of Appeal stated as follows on reliance on circumstantial evidence: *“However, it is a truism that the guilt of an accused person can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which enables a court to deduce a particular fact from circumstances or facts that have been proved. Such evidence can form a strong basis for proving the guilt of an accused person just as direct evidence. Way back in 1928 Lord Heward, CJ stated as follows on circumstantial evidence in* ***R v Taylor, Weaver and Donovan [1928] Cr. App. R 21****: -* *“It has been said that the evidence against the Applicant is circumstantial. So it is, but circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by intensified examination is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation from evidence to say that it is circumstantial.”* 1. In the same case, the Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in considering whether circumstantial evidence placed before a court can support a conviction. The court stated: *“Before circumstantial evidence can form the basis of a conviction however, it must satisfy several conditions, which are designed to ensure that it unerringly points to the Subject person, and to no other person, as the perpetrator of the offence. In* ***Abanga alias Onyango v R Cr. App. No 32 of 1990****, this court set out the conditions as follows:* *“It is settled law that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the Subject; 9iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.”* 1. The benefits accruing from doubts are to the advantage of the accused and the material inconsistency, contradictions in evidence and want of identification evidence created reasonable doubt as to who stabbed the deceased. 2. In this instance no eye witness testified of witnessing the Accused assaulting the deceased save for two witnesses that heard the deceased scream, they never saw the deceased, they met the accused who chased them away. 3. In this instance the inculpatory facts are those of the scream by the deceased, the response by the witnesses who are ultimately chased away by the accused who stood by the door holding a whip. To this court the same is not incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his innocence as he did in defence. **Disposition** 1. In conclusion, it is the finding of this court that, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is found not guilty of the offence of Murder and is consequently acquitted under section 215 of the criminal procedure code. 2. The accused shall forthwith be set free, unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered. **Judgement read, signed and delivered at Busia** **this 2nd day of July, 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **Mohochi. S. M.** **Judge**