[2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, that established a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The evidence, if believed, was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court emphasized that at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Erick Mutugi Mutiria
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 19 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, 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
Erick Mutugi Mutiria
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer After Close of Prosecution Case
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 meets the threshold under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had adduced evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, that established a prima facie case against the accused for the offence of murder. The evidence, if believed, was sufficient to require the accused to be put on his defence. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to make a conclusive determination of guilt but only to assess whether the prosecution's case meets the threshold to proceed. The court relied on the legal standard set out in Ramanlal T Bhatt v Republic, which requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence and mandates that the evidence must have sufficient credibility and weight to justify...
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is placed on his defence as charged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Mutiria (Criminal Case 19 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR) (5 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Chuka
Criminal Case 19 of 2019
LW Gitari, J
October 5, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Erick Mutugi Mutiria
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused person herein was charged with the offence murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Law of Kenya). As per the amended Information dated November 18, 2020, it is alleged that on October 15, 2019 at Kathathani Trading Centre, Gitareni Location, Kiamucii Sub-Location within Tharaka-Nithi County the accused person unlawfully murdered one Silas Mwiti Stephen.
2. The prosecution called a total of eight (8) witnesses in support of its case against the accused herein before closing their case on July 17, 2023. In summary, it was the prosecution’s case that on the material day, the deceased was taking alcohol when the accused started abusing him. After a brief exchange, the accused slapped the deceased. The two were then pushed out of the bar. The accused went to an unknown destination while the deceased continued drinking. It is alleged that the accused returned with a knife concealed in his clothes and stabbed the deceased on the chest. The deceased fell down and started pleading for help as he was bleeding profusely. The deceased was rushed to Kathathani Medical Clinic but he passed on before receiving treatment. According to PW3, the doctor who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased, the cause of his death was severe blood loss due to penetrating stab wound.
3. Under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya) this Court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling on whether the accused person has a case to answer or not. In other words, the question for this court to determine at this stage is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused persons sufficient enough to warrant this court to put them on their defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The leading authority on what constitutes a prima facie case is the case of Ramanlal T Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] EA 332 where the court stated as follows:“(i)The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a prima facie case is not made out if at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.(ii)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.”
5. In this case, I have considered the evidence adduced so far from the prosecution’s side. In my view, the accused person has a case to answer. At this stage, the Court is not to minutely examine the said evidence and make a conclusive determination as to whether the accused stands convicted or not. Accordingly, I opine that based on the evidence as presented by the prosecution.I find that it is sufficient to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence as charged.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 5THDAY OF OCTOBER 2023. L.W. GITARIJUDGE