[2014] KEHC 5024 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, consisting solely of the testimony of one witness who did not witness the stabbing and whose account was based on hearsay, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The absence of direct evidence, failure to call key witnesses, and lack of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5024 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Musa Hinda Joash
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 29 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- acquittal at close of prosecution's case
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Prima Facie Case, Standard of Proof, Acquittal, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Musa Hinda Joash
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain a charge of murder against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, consisting solely of the testimony of one witness who did not witness the stabbing and whose account was based on hearsay, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The absence of direct evidence, failure to call key witnesses, and lack of identification of the murder weapon left significant gaps in the prosecution's case. Applying the standard set out in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic, the court held that a mere scintilla of evidence or uncorroborated testimony is inadequate to require the accused to make a defence. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused under Section 306(1) of the Criminal...
Court Disposition
acquittal at close of prosecution's case
Orders
- The accused Musa Hinda Joash is acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 29 OF 2010
REPUBLIC............................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MUSA HINDA JOASH......................................................RESPONDENT
RULING:
The Accused Musa Hinda Joash was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
Particulars of the charge are that on 2nd day of May 2010, at around 4. 40 p.m. at Lessos Trading Centre in Nandi South District within the Rift Valley Province, murdered Paul Jo'mwanyi alias Mwite.
At the close of the prosecution's case on 15th July, 2013, only one prosecution witness, namely Samuel K. Mutai had testified. His testimony was that on 2nd May, 2010 at 4. 00 p.m. he was going home from Lessos Centre when two people approached him and told him that some people had stabbed another with a knife. He said that he proceeded to the scene and found the accused and the deceased who had been stabbed and lay on the ground bleeding from the chest. He said he arrested the accused and escorted him to Lessos police station. He said he returned to the scene with two police officers and found that the deceased had been taken to Lessos Medical Clinic. He said they went to the said clinic but found the deceased had already died. He said they collected a knife from the scene which the accused had used to stab the deceased.
On cross-examination, PW1 said that he was told by the deceased's brother that it is the accused who had stabbed the deceased.
Apparently, the prosecution had to close its case prematurely after being unable to secure the attendance of other witnesses. Obviously, the evidence of PW1 leaves very many gaps which could only be sealed by other witnesses. Equally so, many questions remain unanswered. For instance, who saw the accused stab the deceased? Who investigated the case and who concluded that the accused should be charged? Why did PW1 not identify the murder weapon he said he and police collected from the scene?
It is also not clear why close to four years down the line, only one witness testified. Even the deceased's brother who reportedly told PW1 that it is the accused who stabbed the deceased did not come to court as a witness. In all, the evidence on record is so scanty, so insufficient as to found a case against the accused.
The standard of proof as to whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case was laid down in the reknown case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt -vs- Republic (1957) E.A, 332 in the words that;
“The question whether there is a case to answer cannot depend 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”
In the upshot it is my considered view that a case has not been made out against the accused just sufficiently to require him to make a defence. I accordingly acquit him under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DATED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 8th day of May, 2014.
G. W. NGENYE – MACHARIA
JUDGE
Gakuo holding brief for Miyienda for the Accused.
Ms Oduor for State.