https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7361

Republic v Muthoni (Criminal Case 33 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7361 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7361 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Criminal Case 33 of 2023 KW Kiarie, J May 26, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Judy Njeri Muthoni Accused Judgment 1.Judy Njeri Muthoni is charged with an offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on the 18th day of April 2022, at Kirima village, in Mirangine Sub-County of Nyandarua County, Paul Njoroge Gitoru. 3.When the deceased was discovered dead in his house, the police doubted the report made by the accused. She claimed to have found him dead upon waking, but investigations discounted her version. Consequently, she was charged with his murder. 4.In her defence, the accused contended that the deceased attacked her, the two engaged in a fight and in the process, he was fatally injured. 5.The issues to be determined are:a.Whether the accused acted in self-defence; andb.Whether the offence of murder was established against the accused. 6.Sgt. Robert Awiti (PW4) was the acting OCS of Mirangine Police Station at the time of the incident. The accused reported that while she was watching TV with her husband, the deceased, a motorcyclist, approached their home. The deceased opened the door and was speaking to someone. She fell asleep and found him dead in a pool of blood the next day. 7.Along with other officers, they visited the couple’s home in Kirima village. They discovered the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the sitting room. They questioned the accused’s version of events, as they found a bloodstained bedsheet on the bed in the bedroom. Additionally, an axe and a pitchfork were located under a nearby chair. They seized the exhibits, including a yellow jacket that the accused was wearing when she made the report. 8.Kipng’etich Bernard (PW5) analysed the samples at the Government Chemist and arrived at the following conclusion:a.The DNA profile generated from the bloodstains on the axe (item A1), the bedsheet (item F1), the Pitchfork (item B1), the cotton wool (item E), the jacket (item F3), and the dress (item F2) matched the DNA profile generated from the blood sample marked “C”, Paul Njoroge Gitobu (deceased) with random probability of match of 1 in 1.34x1034.b.The DNA profile generated from the blood sample marked “D”, Judy Njeri Muthoni (accused), with a random probability of match of 1 in 4.41x1035. 9.These findings clearly indicate that the accused was part of the transaction resulting in the deceased’s death. 10.Judy Njeri Muthoni defended herself, stating that around 2 a.m. on April 18, 2022, she heard noise outside and asked her husband to check. He insulted her and began beating her. He grabbed an axe, leading to a struggle. The deceased was injured on the head during this fight. She became confused after the incident and was taken for treatment at Dundori Centre. 11.The prosecution must establish the presence of malice aforethought to secure a conviction for the offence of murder. 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). 12.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. 13.The accused alleged that the deceased was a drunkard who often insulted her with vulgar language and frequently attacked her. She stated that, besides alcohol, he also consumed khat and smoked bhang. This claim was partially supported by Reverend William Gitoru Njoroge (PW2), the deceased's father, who testified that his son was a drunkard and was estranged from his wife.14.The deceased and the accused were alone in their house. The fact that the accused was also injured supports the contention by the accused that there was a fight between the two. She blamed the deceased for the incident.15.The evidence of Dr Kibet Kenneth (PW1) was that the deceased sustained a fractured skull. The injury was deep, suggesting the use of substantial force.16.Based on the analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the prosecution has not proven the accused guilty of murder. However, they have proven the lesser charge of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The accused is acquitted of murder but found guilty and convicted of manslaughter under Section 202 read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE