https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6264

Republic v Muriithi (Criminal Case E003 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6264 (KLR) (Crim) (12 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6264 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Criminal Criminal Case E003 of 2024 KW Kiarie, J May 12, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Duncan Gatwiku Muriithi Accused Judgment 1.Duncan Gatwiku Muriithi is charged with murder contrary to section 203, as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on the 21st day of November 2023, at Bankers Estate, Ol Kalou Township, within Nyandarua County, he murdered Mary Wangari Gachoka. 3.The body of the deceased was found in her locked house, lying in bed covered with blankets. She had a slit throat and likely died from heavy bleeding. After her death, there were withdrawals from her M-Pesa account. Some stolen items and a house key were reportedly recovered from the accused's house in Rumuruti. 4.Duncan Gatwiku Muriithi, the accused, argued in his defence that he was at his Leshau home at the time of the offence. He further argued that this was arrested in Leshau, not in Nyahururu. 5.The issues to be determined are:a.Whether the accused was linked with the withdrawals from the deceased’s M-Pesa account,b.Whether the accused was arrested in Rumuruti or Leshau,c.Whether the prosecution’s evidence displaced the alibi defence of the accused or not; andd.Whether the offence of murder was proved against any or all the accused. 6.Peter Irungu Kahari (PW6), Daniel Njuguna Murigi (PW7), and Lucy Wanjiru Kabiu (PW8) testified that they were M-Pesa agents located in Nairobi. They explained that on November 23, 2023, a young man approached each of their agents at different locations in Nairobi. PW7 stated that he claimed his mother was sick and was admitted to a hospital, and asked to withdraw money from her account. To PW8, he said his mother had sent him to carry out the transaction, while to PW6, he mentioned she was unwell. The three allowed him to proceed with the withdrawals. They could not identify the person or persons who conducted transactions on the deceased’s account. 7.Although Sgt. Rhoda Nzioka (PW9) testified that they established that the phone number 0792xxxxxx of the accused and phone number 0718xxxxxx of the deceased were in the same geographical location from November 19, 2023, to November 23, 2023. This was not enough evidence to conclude that he was the one who transacted with the deceased's M-Pesa account after her death. 8.Sgt. Rhoda Nzioka (PW9), in her evidence, testified that they tracked the accused's phone to Rumuruti on the 2nd December 2023. This was a rented house, and the landlord assisted them in gaining access. In the house of the accused, they recovered assorted items which the family of the deceased had reported were found missing when the deceased was found killed. They also found a bunch of keys, and one of the keys opened the padlock to the house of the deceased. An inventory was made of the recoveries. 9.Sophia Muthoni Wangare (PW1) testified that when she entered her mother’s house, she noted some items, including a TV set and a water dispenser, were missing. She also noted that her mother's bunch of keys had been separated. 10.The recovered items were identified by David Wamae Waweru (PW3) as theirs. 11.When an accused raises an alibi defence, they do not assume any burden to prove that it is the truth. This was stated in the case of Kiarie vs Republic [1984] KLR, where the Court of Appeal held:An alibi raises a specific defence, and an accused person who puts forward an alibi as an answer to a charge does not, in law, thereby assume any burden of proving that answer, and it is sufficient if an alibi introduces into the mind of a court a doubt that is not unreasonable. 12.In the instant case, the accused contended that he was arrested at his Leshau home and not at Rumuruti. He called Peter Mureithi Gatwiku (DW2) his father, who supported his contention. He also argued that he was forced to sign the inventory. The evidence adduced by the prosecution displaced this contention. Although the landlord of the Rumuruti house was not called as a witness, the tracking evidence undermined his defence. The officers tracking him were unknown to him, and they had no reason to implicate him falsely. Secondly, the averment that he was forced to sign the inventory was clearly an afterthought. When Sgt. Rhoda Nzioka (PW9) testified about it, no issue of forced signing was brought up with her. 13.The alibi defence of the accused is therefore dismissed. 14.I, therefore, find that the prosecution has proved to the required standards that the accused caused the death of the deceased.1.To convict for murder based on the evidence on record, the prosecution must prove the existence of malice aforethought. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, malice aforethought is defined as:The requisite mental state for common-law murder, encompassing any one of the following(1)the intent to kill(2)the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm(3)extremely reckless difference to the value of human life (the so-called “abandoned and malignant heart”), or(4)the intent to commit a dangerous felony (which leads to culpability under the felony-murder rule). 16.Section 206 of the Penal Code gives instances when malice aforethought may be proved. It provides: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. 17.Dr Titus Ngulungu performed a post-mortem on the body of the deceased. The body had the following injuries:a.A large slash wound on the anterior neck extending from the upper neck to the contralateral side. The wound involves the skin, muscles, major vessels, trachea, oesophagus, and nerves.b.Defence injuries which were: slash, incision wounds on the right four of dgit capitate and lateral 3 fingers on the left.c.Lungs were collapsed.d.Severed oesophagus, ande.Swollen brain. 18.He formed the opinion that the deceased died from massive blood loss caused by multiple slash injuries to the neck, consistent with homicide. 19.The deceased's injuries were clearly inflicted intentionally. The prosecution's evidence has sufficiently proved the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is convicted of this offence. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE