https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9712

Republic v Muia (Criminal Case e001 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 9712 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9712 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Criminal Case e001 of 2021 NIO Adagi, J June 11, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Moses Musau Muia Accused Ruling Introduction 1.This ruling is on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the Accused in this matter to warrant him being put on his defence.The accused Moses Musau Muia has been charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya. 3.The particulars are that on the 12th day of November 2020 at Kitie village in Mbee Sub-location Kathiani Sub-county within Machakos County wilfully and unlawfully murdered Peter Kioko. 4.The accused denied the charges and the case proceeded for hearing. The Prosecution called ten (10) witnesses in a bid to prove their case. At the close of the prosecution’s case, directions were taken on filing of submissions on no case to answer. The prosecution’s submissions are dated 6th March 2026 file by Ms. Agatha Abang, prosecution Counsel while the accused’s submissions are dated 3rd February 2026 filed by Mr. Fred K. Musyimu. The accused person has also filed supplementary submissions in addition to his counsel’s submissions. Prosecution’s submissions 5.The prosecution while submitting on the elements of murder, relied on the decision in Republic vs. Mohammed Dadi Kokane & 7 Others [2014] eKLR where the elements of the offence of murder were set out by M. Odero, J as follows:- 1.The fact of the death of the deceased. 2.The cause of such death. 3.Proof that the deceased met his death as a result of an unlawful act or omission on the part of the accused persons, and lastly 4.Proof that said unlawful act or omission was committed with malice aforethought. 6.The Prosecution also relied in Mombasa High Court Case No. 42 of 2009 between Republic vs. Daniel Musyoka Muasya, Paul Mutua Musya and Walter Otieno Ojwang where the court expressed itself as hereunder:“The prosecution therefore is required to tender sufficient proof of the following three crucial ingredients in order to establish a charge of murder:a.Proof of the fact as well as the cause of the death of the deceased persons.b.Proof that the death of the deceased's resulted from an unlawful act or omission on the part of the accused persons.c.Proof that such unlawful act or omission was committed with malice aforethought." 7.The Prosecution submitted that it availed 10 witnesses in order to prove its case and that the following issues for determination namely:i.Was the accused involved in the murder of the deceased?ii.Did the accused have malice?iii.Was the accused identified appropriately?iv.Was the cause of death as a result of the injuries inflicted? 8.On whether the accused involved in the murder of the deceased, the prosecution submitted that the testimony of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 was that they saw the deceased alive on 11th November 2020 when he was called by the accused person. He was last seen alive by the witnesses on this date just before the accused person called him from the farm to send him. PWI and PW2 also stated that the deceased was to return home and when they searched for him the accused person told them that the deceased had returned home to PW1. Further, clothes belonging to the deceased were found in the accused person's house, clothes which he collected from PWI for the deceased to wear. 9.On whether the accused had malice, the prosecution referred to Section 206 of the Penal Code which provides that malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving any one or more of the following circumstances; - 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; 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 difference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused; An intent to commit a felony; 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. 10.The prosecution submitted that it's evident that the accused person had malice aforethought because he called for the deceased with the promise of buying him shoes but he did not do so and on this pretence told everyone that the deceased had gone home to PW1 but instead he was found dead hanging in the far. The accused was the person last scene with the deceased alive. 11.On whether the accused was identified appropriately, the prosecution submitted that it relied on direct evidence for identification. The accused was identified appropriately by PWI, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 & PW6 as last seen with the deceased person. The deceased person further spoke to PWI informing her that she was with the deceased and desired to come back home. 12.On whether the cause of death was as a result of the injuries inflicted, the prosecution submitted that the Pathologist testified that he filled the Postmortem report for the deceased. He formed the opinion that the cause of death was Asphyxia secondary to manual strangulation. The Pathologist also went further to explain the features a deceased body would have in the event the person died from hanging differentiating them from strangulation. This was also consistent with PW10’s observation of the scene where he found the deceased hanging concluding that, that was the secondary scene. This shows that the deceased could not have died by hanging as was being posed. 13.It is submitted that PW10 also took photos of the deceased and the scene which corroborate PW10’s assertions that the scene was the secondary scene. 14.The prosecution relied on the decision in the case of Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs. Republic [2018] eKLR wherein at paragraph 22 it is stated as follows:“It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person”. 15.The prosecution also placed reliance in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335 where the court stated as follows:“It may not be easy to define what is meant by a "prima facie case", but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence." 16.Similarly, in R vs Jagjiwan M. Patel and Others (1) T.L.R. (R) 85 the court stated that:“...all the court has to decide at the close of the evidence in support of the charge is whether a case is made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make his defence. It may be a strong case or it may be a weak case. The court is not required at this stage to apply its mind in deciding finally whether the evidence is worthy of credit or whether, if believed, it is weighty enough to prove the case conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt. A ruling that there is a case to answer would be justified, in my opinion. in a border line case where the court, though not satisfied as to the conclusiveness of the prosecution evidence, is yet of the opinion that the case made out is one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. " 17.The Prosecution submitted that based on the testimonies of its 10 witnesses in addition to the exhibits and documentary evidence produced in this case, the Prosecution has proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt and the accused ought to be placed on his defence under S. 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accused’s submissions 18.The accused submitted that under Section 203 of the Penal Code (Cap 63), murder requires proof that: death occurred, death was caused by an unlawful act or omission, the accused caused the act, malice aforethought existed. Even if death is proved, the prosecution must prove causation by the accused. 19.The accused submitted that PW1 Rose Mbathe Mbaka accused's wife for 10 years, testified in examination in-chief thus, at pg. 10, lines 5-9 of court proceedings; "The next day on 12/11/2020 1 went to work with intention of going to accused's home to look for deceased. At about 10-11 am, I went there but, on my way, I saw the accused's father hurriedly came towards me. He told me that the deceased was found having committed suicide. I got shocked and lost consciousness. I never went where it was alleged, he had committed suicide". 20.The witness went a head to clarify on the issue of linking the accused with the death of the deceased in cross-examination doth, at pg. 11, lines 8-10 of court proceedings; "The accused and the deceased were closer. The deceased had a phone from which they were communicating. During that time, he never mentioned that the accused was mistreating him." 21.That PW2 Grace Mutile Muasya, testified as follows, at pg. 12, lines 1-4 of court proceedings; "1 saw the deceased in a kneeling position. I saw a manila rope on his neck. I got shocked and threw the sack down. The rope was tied to macadamia tree. From the neck to the tree where the rope was tied was long. The deceased was kneeling on the ground”. The witness re-affirmed to this esteemed Court on the issue of relationship between the deceased and the accused by stating thus in cross-examination; at pg. 12 of court proceedings; " I have never heard of any mistreatment of the deceased by accused.....it seemed as if he had hanged himself". 22.The accused submitted that it is therefore crystal clear that there is no doubt as who caused the death of the deceased hence evidence points at committing suicide. 23.That PW4 Jeremiah Maithya Muendo, testified as follows, at pg. 16, lines 14-15 of court proceedings; "I saw Peter the following day. He was hanging on a tree. He was not alive. He was hanging by a rope. It was not a very big rope." On the issue of whether there existed bad blood between the deceased and the accused, the witness observed thus in cross-examination, at pg. 17, lines 5-6 of court proceedings; "Peter and his father were in good terms. Peter told us his father had promised him shoes." 24.PW5 Peter Mutuku, testified in examination in-chief as follows, at pg. 17, lines,3-7 of court proceedings; "On 11/11/2020 at 7.30 am we went breakfast with my grandfather, Peter Musau, uncle Amos Mumo and the deceased. We went to work in the shamba nearby. At 1pm we went for lunch. After lunch we returned to the shamba. While working the deceased father called him and sent him for cigarettes." The witness goes a head to state thus, at pg. 18, lines 1-3 of court proceedings; "The deceased left but did not return. The deceased left for the market and the father went to his house. We never saw the deceased after that. That night we did not spent the night with him." At lines 8-9, the witness continued to inform the court as follows, "we thought he returned to his mother. The next day his body was found hanging on a tree." When cross-examined, the witness stated as follows; "They were in good terms with the deceased. It was normal for the accused to send the deceased shopping. On that day we were working in the shamba, the father did not follow the deceased after sending him." This witness reiterated his position in re-examination by Mr. Jamsumba (state counsel) as follows, at pg. 19 of court proceedings; "The father did not follow the deceased after he was sent." 25.PW6, Amos Mumo Musau, on his part testified thus in court, at pg. 19, lines 5-12 of court proceedings; "On 11/11/2020 1 woke up at 6 am and went to my father's house where I took tea with Peter Mutuku (PW5) my sister's son and the deceased Peter Kioko. After taking tea together with Peter Mutuku, we went to the shamba later Peter Kioko was called by his father and sent to shop. After he returned, he joined us and we continued working until 1pm when he broke for lunch. After lunch we returned to the shamba till around 2:30pm. The deceased father called him again and sent him to the shop for cigarettes. We continued working till 4pm after he returned. At 4pm he was called again by his father and after that he did not return." The witness finalized his testimony by stating thus, "my father called me and told me that the deceased body was found hanging on a tree." He also informed the court that the deceased and accused had father son relationship and that they were in good terms. It was normal for the accused to send the deceased. He stated that the deceased committed suicide. 26.PW7, Samuel Nzau Mwanzia, the assistant chief, testified in cross-examination as follows, at pg. 22, lines 5-6 of court proceedings; "He told me that a boy had committed suicide. I proceeded to the scene. I saw the body was hanging by the sisal rope for tying cartons”. 27.The accused submitted that he requested for first information report on 16/2/2023 which was never supplied to him. According to the investigation dairy OB No. 24/12/11/2020, the deceased committed suicide. The question is where, how and when did it change for him to have intentional and unlawfully murdered his son as per the charge sheet. It is also true that the investigating officer moved the deceased’s body from the scene where suicide had occurred. 28.The accused submitted that he is alive to the fact that at this stage of the proceedings, the trial court does not concern itself to the standard of proof required to convict, which is normally beyond reasonable doubt, however we submit that it is a trite legal principle that the weight of the prosecution's evidence must be such that it is sufficient for the trial court to place the accused to her defence. The test is always that: can the court convict the accused at this stage if no rebuttal is offered to the prosecution's case? 29.To buttress the above legal principle, the accused relied on the case of Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs. Republic [2018] eKLR, where the court held that: -"A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person." 30.Also, in the case of Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR where the High Court defined a prima facie case as follows: -“...it means the establishment of a rebuttal presumption that an accused person is guilty of the offence he/she is charged with." 31.The accused submitted that the critical elements that must be satisfied to prove an offence has been committed under Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code may be therefore be dissected as;i.Proof of deathii.Proof that the death was unlawfuliii.Proof that the death was caused by the Accused (actus reus)iv.Proof that the Accused had malice aforethought (mens rea) 32.The accused submits that the prosecution fatally failed on establishing the last two ingredients. 33.PW5, Peter Mutuku, a key prosecution witness expressly stated that: The accused sent the deceased to buy cigarettes while they were working in the shamba as a group which included Amos Mumo (PW6), Peter Mutuku (PW5) and the deceased. This was normal and routine. The accused did not follow the deceased. After the deceased left for the market, he was never seen again alive. 34.That upon cross-examination, PW6, Amos Mumo, gave evidence that it was Peter Mutuku (PW5) who heard the deceased being called, and not him. He also confirmed that he did not see the accused follow the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence of the accused following the deceased or anything connecting him to the physical act leading to the death of the deceased. 35.It is submitted that the prosecution's case is solely based on a loose application of the last seen doctrine, by merely citing the accused as the last person seen with the deceased. However, this theory collapses under its own evidence. Reliance is placed in Republic v Joseph Kuria Irungu & another [2019] eKLR, the High Court was clear that:“The doctrine of last seen cannot apply where the evidence does not conclusively show that the accused was the last person with the deceased." 36.The accused maintains that in this case, the deceased was last seen in the company of Peter Musau, Amos Mumo, Peter Mutuku and the accused in the shamba. 37.The deceased then left alone for the market after being sent for a packet of cigarettes by the accused. Peter Mutuku, who was present and alert, categorically debunked the claim that the accused was the last person with the deceased. 38.PWI0, the investigation officer, nonetheless testified on the erroneous assumption that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased - an assumption contradicted by prosecution evidence itself. The last seen doctrine is therefore factually inapplicable. 39.The accused referred to the case of Sawe v Republic [2003] eKLR 364, where the Court of Appeal held:“Circumstantial evidence must be such that it points irresistibly to the accused and excludes all other hypotheses." 40.In the present case, there are multiple unexplained gaps in the prosecution's case and the prosecution has simply failed to establish any nexus between the accused and the act of killing. The accused submitted that suspicion cannot replace proof. 41.Further, the accused submitted that the prosecution has not established the critical element of malice aforethought. The deceased's mother, who testified as PWI, stated that the accused and the deceased were close and that there had been no recent disagreements. She further gave evidence that the accused had never assaulted the deceased before. There is no evidence of an intention by the accused to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person. 42.Reference was made in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, where the court stated as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one "which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction."This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is "some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence". A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence..." 43.The accused submitted that this case, though deeply tragic because it involves the loss of a young life, must ultimately be determined not on emotion, suspicion, or sympathy, but strictly on evidence and the law. Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every accused person the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That constitutional presumption remains intact unless the prosecution discharges its legal burden. 44.That the Court of Appeal in Bhatt v Republic (supra)laid down the guiding principle that a prima facie case is only established where a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence, could convict if the accused chose to remain silent. 45.It is the accused’s position that in the present case, the prosecution's own witnesses have consistently testified that the deceased was found hanging from a tree, with a rope around his neck, and that he had hanged himself. There is no direct evidence, no circumstantial evidence, and no forensic evidence linking the accused to the alleged act of murder. 46.That what emerges from the prosecution case is not homicide but suicide. The law is clear: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (He who alleges must prove) and equally: In dubio pro reo (When in doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused). That applying the test in Bhatt v R, the evidence tendered by the prosecution would not be sufficient to convict the accused, even if he offered no defence at all. To place the accused on his defence would be to invite him to fill evidentiary gaps left by a deficient prosecution case. 47.The accused therefore humbly urges this Court to find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case, and to acquit the accused Person forthwith under Section 306 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis and Determination 48.The offence of Murder with which the accused is charged with is defined under Section 203 of the Penal Code as follows;“Any person who of malice aforethought causes death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder." 49.Section 204 of the Penal Code proceeds to define malice aforethought as follows;"Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving 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." 50.The accused herein has been charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya. The particulars are that on the 12th day of November 2020 at Kitie village in Mbee Sub-location Kathiani Sub-county within Machakos County wilfully and unlawfully murdered Peter Kioko. 51.The accused denied the charges and the case proceeded for hearing. The Prosecution called ten (10) witnesses in a bid to prove it’s case after which the prosecution’s case was closed. 52.It is trite law that at the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial court must consider the evidence so far tendered by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established in order to call upon the accused person to defend himself. If no such case has been made out at this stage, then the trial court must acquit the accused person as provided for under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 53.What constitutes a prima facie case is clearly stated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335, where the court stated as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one "which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction." This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether there is "some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused person on his defence". A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough: nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence......It may not be easy to define what is meant by a "prima facie case", but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence" 54.With the above authority in mind, I have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the submissions tendered by both parties on no case to answer. 55.There are critical elements that must be satisfied to prove an offence has been committed under Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. The prosecution therefore is required to tender sufficient proof of the following four crucial ingredients in order to establish a charge of murder :-i.Proof of deathii.Proof that the death was unlawfuliii.Proof that the death was caused by the Accused (actus reus)iv.Proof that the Accused had malice aforethought (mens rea) Proof of death 56.It is not disputed that Peter Kioko lost his life as confirmed by the Postmortem report dated 17/11/2020 and all the prosecution witnesses. I find that the prosecution proved this ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. Proof that the death was unlawful 57.The deceased’s dead body was found hanging on a Macadamia tree with a sisal rope around his neck in the farm of the deceased's grandfather. PW1, PW2, PW4. PW5, PW6 and PW7 all stated that the deceased had committed suicide. On the other hand, PW10, the investigating officer is said to have visited the scene and concluded that the scene was staged. Whether the deceased committed suicide or the same was staged, the fact remains his death was not natural and can only be said to have been unlawful. Again, I find that the prosecution proved this second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. Proof that the death was caused by the Accused (actus reus) 58.The accused submitted that he requested for first information report on 16/2/2023 which was never supplied to him. According to the investigation dairy OB No. 24/12/11/2020, the deceased committed suicide. The accused questioned where, how and when did it change for him to have intentionally and unlawfully murdered his son as per the charge sheet. Could it be true that the investigating officer moved the deceased’s body from the scene where suicide had occurred as alleged by the accused. PW6 Amos Mumo Musau testified that on 11/11/2020 he woke up at 6 am and went to his father's house where he took tea with Peter Mutuku (PW5) his sister's son and the deceased Peter Kioko. After taking tea together with Peter Mutuku, they went to the shamba later the deceased Peter Kioko was called by his father (Accused) and sent to the shop. After he returned, he joined them and they continued working until 1pm when they broke for lunch. After lunch they returned to the shamba till around 2:30pm. The deceased’s father called him again and sent him to the shop for cigarettes. They continued working till 4pm after the deceased returned. At 4pm the deceased was called again by his father and after that he did not return. The witness finalized his testimony by stating that his father called him and told him that the deceased’s body was found hanging on a tree. He also informed the court that the deceased and accused had father-son relationship and that they were in good terms. It was normal for the accused to send the deceased. He stated that the deceased committed suicide. 59.PW7 Samuel Nzau Mwanzia, the assistant chief, testified in cross-examination that he was told that a boy had committed suicide. Heproceeded to the scene and saw the body was hanging by the sisal rope for tying cartons. The prosecution did not connect the clothes belonging to the deceased which were found in the accused person's house, clothes which he collected from PWI for the deceased to wear and the deceased’s death. 60.I agree with the accused that the prosecution's case is solely based on the last seen doctrine, by merely naming the accused as the last person seen with the deceased. None of the witnesses testified that they saw the accused with the deceased after the accused sent the deceased for the cigarettes. In Republic v Joseph Kuria Irungu & another [2019] eKLR, the High Court was clear that:“The doctrine of last seen cannot apply where the evidence does not conclusively show that the accused was the last person with the deceased." 61.In this case, the deceased was last seen in the company of Peter Musau, Amos Mumo, Peter Mutuku and the accused in the shamba. The deceased then left alone for the market after being sent for a packet of cigarettes by the accused. Peter Mutuku, who was present and alert, categorically debunked the claim that the accused was the last person with the deceased. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused to the death of the deceased and or to prove that the death of the deceased herein was caused by the accused (actus reus). Proof that the Accused had malice aforethought (mens rea) 62.The deceased's mother, who testified as PWI, stated that the accused and the deceased were close and that there had been no recent disagreements. She further gave evidence that the accused had never assaulted the deceased before. There is no evidence of an intention by the accused to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person. PW6 Amos Mumo Musau testified that the deceased and accused had a father-son relationship and that they were in good terms. It was normal for the accused to send the deceased. 63.In the case of Joseph Kimani Njau v Republic [2014] eKLR the Court of Appeal stated:“In both criminal trials, both the actus reus and the mens rea are required for the offence charged; they must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court is under a duty to ensure that before any conviction is entered, both actus reus and mens rea have been proved to the required standard. In the instant case, the trial court erred in failing to evaluate the evidence on record and to determine if the specific mens rea required for murder had been proved by the prosecution …” 64.In this case, I find that malice aforethought was not proved on the part of the accused to the required standard. 65.In the case of Ronald Nyaga Kiura vs. Republic [2018] eKLR wherein paragraph 22 it is stated as follows:“It is important to note that at the close of prosecution, what is required in law at this stage is for the trial court to satisfy itself that a prima facie has been made out against the accused person sufficient enough to put him on his defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A prima facie case is established where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is sufficient on its own for a court to return a guilty verdict if no other explanation in rebuttal is offered by an accused person”. 66.I therefore find that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case requiring the accused to be put on his defence under Section 306 as read with section 307 of the Penal Code. 67.The upshot is that the accused has no case to answer and is therefore discharged and forthwith released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held. 68.Orders accordingly. This file is hereby closed. RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS ON 11TH JUNE 2026NOEL ADAGIJUDGEDELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 11TH JUNE 2026In the presence of :Mr. Nzuva hb for Mr. Musyimi........ for Accused at Machakos Main PrisonMs Agatha........... ..for RespondentMilly........ Court Assistant