https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6943

Republic v Muruja alias Muraria (Criminal Case 7 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 6943 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Sentence) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6943 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Case 7 of 2019 RL Korir, J May 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecution and Josphat Mucee Muruja alias Muraria Accused Sentence 1.The accused Josphat Murujo alias Muraria was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence are that on 16th May, 2019 at Chiakariga Sub-location, Tharaka South Sub-County within Tharaka- Nithi County, the said accused person killed one Eliud Muriungi. 2.At the conclusion of the trial, vide a judgement dated 11th July 2025, this court (differently constituted) found him guilty as charged. 3.At the sentencing hearing on 22nd October 2025, Ms. David learned defence counsel submitted that the accused was remorseful for his action. That he was a family man with children who needed him as his wife ran away when he was arrested. That, he prayed for a lenient sentence. 4.The accused addressed the court and asked for empathy saying that the death of the deceased was not intended. He also stated that his wife had fractured her leg. 5.Ms Rukunga, learned prosecution counsel on her part submitted that the deceased had a wife and children who were calling for justice. She urged for a custodial and deterrent sentence. 6.A Pre-sentence Probation Officer’s Report was filed on 30th July 2026. The report states that the Accused was a family man with a wife and six children who were suffering due to his incarceration. 7.With respect to the victim impact statement, the Report stated that the victims considered that the accused posed a threat to them because of his aggression and that he also be blamed them for his prosecution and incarceration. 8.I have considered the mitigation and the Pre-sentence Report. The Report states that the accused was not remorseful and maintained that he was innocent. 9.The accused has already been convicted of the offence. His persistence of innocence therefore can only be meaningful in an appeal. This court can only note that the accused was not remorseful. 10.Sentence must be proportional and must meet several objectives as stated in the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines as follows:-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.In the case of Thomas Mwambu Wenyi v Republic (2017) eKLR, the Court of Appeal cited the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Alister Anthony Pereira v State of Mahareshtra at paragraph 70-71 where the court aptly summarized the objectives and principles of sentencing in the following words:-“Sentencing is an important task in the matter of crime. One of the prime objectives of the Criminal Law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing an accused person on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstance of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurispendence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.” 12.The facts of the case show that the action of accused which resulted in the death of the deceased was senseless. There was no clear motive for his violence. He must therefore take responsibility for his actions. 13.Having taken all factors into consideration, it is my finding that the accused deserved a deterrent sentence. The accused shall serve 20 years’ imprisonment. The sentence shall be deemed to run from 8th July 2019 being the date of arraignment and pre-trial custody. 14.The accused has 14 days’ right of appeal against both conviction and sentence.Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026...........................R. LAGAT - KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Accused, Ms. David for the Accused, and Rukunga for the State; Muriuki (Court Assistant).