[2016] KEHC 6048 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, sufficiently linked the accused to the offence of murder. The accused was identified as having threatened and subsequently shot the deceased with an arrow, resulting in death. Applying the standard for a prima facie...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6048 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Muthee Saa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 14 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Criminal Procedure, 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
Muthee Saa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant putting him on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced links the accused to the offence of murder sufficiently at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, sufficiently linked the accused to the offence of murder. The accused was identified as having threatened and subsequently shot the deceased with an arrow, resulting in death. Applying the standard for a prima facie case as articulated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic, the court held that the evidence was not a mere scintilla and, if unchallenged, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Therefore, the accused must be put on his defence in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and ordered to be put on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is put on his defence pursuant to Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14 OF 2015
REPUBLIC...........…..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MUTHEE SAA....……........ACCUSED
R U L I N G
Muthee Saa,the accused, is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203as read with Section 204of the Penal Code (Cap. 63), Laws of Kenya.Particulars of the offence are that on the 28thday of January, 2010at Makauru Village, Tseikuru Location, Tseikuru Districtwithin Eastern Province,murdered Daniel Marigu Kiryamutu(deceased).
Facts of the case were that on the 28th January, 2010,the accused disagreed with PW1, Syengo Mbweria,a brother to the deceased. He assaulted PW1 who was rescued by his brother, the deceased and other revelers who were drinking traditional liquor. Their action prompted the accused to fight the deceased. They were separated but the accused vowed to kill PW1 and the deceased. PW3 Joseph Musembithe owner of the home intervened and they all left for their respective homes.
It turned out that the accused went in search of the deceased and met his wife, PW8, Nginu Mangu.The deceased was not home yet. After a while they heard him singing. The accused left going to meet him. All over a sudden PW8 heard the deceased asking why the accused had shot him with an arrow. She sought assistance from her son and another. They carried the deceased who was injured to the house. The following morning he was taken to hospital as he had bled profusely. He was pronounced dead. The postmortem done on his body revealed that he died of cardio respiratory arrest secondary to collapse of lungs.
In the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic (1957) EA 332it was stated that:
“...... A prima facie case is made out if at the close of prosecution, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. 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.”
At the close of the Prosecution’s case there was evidence linking the accused to the act of committing the offence in question such that if he opted to remain silent when put on his defence, a conviction would result. In the premises a prima faciecase has been established warranting the accused being put on his defence – pursuant to the provisions of Section 306(2)of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signedand Deliveredat Kituithis 10thday of February,2016.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE