[2022] KEHC 16466 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused because there was no evidence presented as to the cause of death of the deceased. Although two witnesses saw the accused searching the deceased's pockets while the deceased was injured, neither saw the accused inflict any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16466 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Johana Onyando Musumba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 65 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Circumstantial Evidence, Prima Facie Case, Cause of Death, Acquittal, Burden of Proof
- 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
Johana Onyando Musumba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced was sufficient to link the accused to the offence of murder.
- 3 Whether the prosecution proved the cause of death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused because there was no evidence presented as to the cause of death of the deceased. Although two witnesses saw the accused searching the deceased's pockets while the deceased was injured, neither saw the accused inflict any injuries. The evidence was purely circumstantial and did not directly link the accused to the fatal injuries. The absence of a postmortem report or any medical evidence as to the cause of death meant that the prosecution did not prove an essential ingredient of the offence of murder. Consequently, the court held that the only available option was to acquit the accused under...
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is acquitted under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The accused is to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Musumba (Criminal Case 65 of 2015) [2022] KEHC 16466 (KLR) (15 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16466 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Case 65 of 2015
PJO Otieno, J
December 15, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Johana Onyando Musumba
Accused
Ruling
1. The prosecution closed its case having called three witnesses. Of the three witnesses, the evidence of PW3 connects not the accused with the offence. Only the evidence by PW1 and PW2 connect the accused to the incident to the extent that both saw the accused search the deceased’s pockets while the deceased was lying on the ground on his belly. Neither saw the accused hit the deceased. Their evidence is purely circumstantial in that having seen the accused touch the deceased who had injuries on his body, the accused ought to have given an explanation or an account on how the deceased got so injured but the accused then opted to run away.
2. Circumstantial evidence need to leave no scintilla of doubt that the accused was indeed the assailant. That the accused was so seen and his identification has not been put to doubt, having been a neighbour, well known to the witnesses, the accused may have an explanation by way of rebutting the circumstances pointing at him to have been present when the deceased got assaulted and injured. That explanation however should not serve the purposes of filling in the gap left hanging by the prosecution’s evidence1. 1Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 pages 334-335
3. However, in a case of murder, one of the ingredients to be proved is that the injuries inflicted by the accused were indeed the cause of death of the deceased. Here the case was closed without the prosecution availing evidence in the cause of death. It remains open and unknown what actually led to the death of the deceased. The linkage between the injury on the deceased and cause of death were stressed by the Court of Appeal in Chengo Nickson Kalama –vs- Republic [2015] eKLR in the following words:-'Therefore, the prosecution closed its case without the postmortem report being placed on record. The effect of such an omission is that the death and the cause thereof was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased did not die immediately.'
4. Without evidence linking the death to the injuries observed by PW1, 2 and 3 on the deceased which evidence surely cannot be expected to come from the defence, I do find that the prosecution has failed on its duty to establish a prima facie case.
5. Without prima facie case, the only option available to court under section 306 Criminal Procedure Code is to return a verdict of not guilty and acquit the accused. The accused is thus acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022. PATRICK JO OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Khateshi for the AccusedMs Chala for the ProsecutionCourt Assistant: Polycap MukabwaHigh Court criminal Case No 65 of 2015 – Ruling 2 | Page