[2024] KEHC 3558 (KLR)

Republic v Mwangi (Criminal Case 28 of 2020) [2024] KEHC 3558 (KLR) (11 April 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 3558 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nakuru

Criminal Case 28 of 2020

HM Nyaga, J

April 11, 2024

Between

Republic

Prosecution

and

Kariuki Mwangi alias Joseph KB

Accused

Ruling

1. The accused Kariuki Mwangi Alias Joseph KB was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read section 204 of the Penal Code. The Particulars of the offence were that on the 10th July, 2020 at Goshen Village, Solai in Rongai Sub- County within Nakuru County, he murdered Martha Muthoni Wangui.

2. On 20th July, 2020, the charge was read to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and thereafter the trial ensued with prosecution calling a total of eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case.

3. The Prosecution closed its case after PW11 had testified. Upon the close of the prosecution case, only the accused filed his submissions on no case to answer.

4. The Counsel for the accused, Mr. Maina, submitted that the prosecution is under a duty to prove the ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Those ingredients being, the death of the deceased and the cause; the death of the deceased was caused by the accused’s unlawful action or omission; that in causing the death there was malice aforethought on the part of the accused; and that the accused was positively identified as the one who caused or participated in the killing of the deceased.

5. The counsel argued that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the accused to the offence. He submitted that what the prosecution presented was the alleged confession by the accused to PW1 and PW5 which cannot stand the weight of scrutiny under Section 25(1) (a) of the Evidence Act.

6. He posited that the relationship between the accused and deceased was unascertained as no family member was called to confirm that they were married or had sired children together.

7. He also posited that forensic examination was not done to ascertain that the green blood stained t-shirt belonged to the accused and that the knife had blood that belonged to the deceased.

8. The counsel contended that there was no evidence led to show how the said green t-shirt and a knife were collected from the scene.

9. He submitted that the photos of the motor cycle were not taken from the scene and that there was no ownership document to confirm the same belonged to the deceased or that it had been hired from somewhere else.

10. He posited that the said motor cycle was not dusted for the accused person’s fingerprints and that there was no evidence that placed the accused at the crime scene.

11. He submitted that the motor cycle and the rope equally had no nexus with the charges before court and there was no forensic evidence to link the accused with the same.

12. He argued that there was no evidence upon which sexual assault could be inferred and discredited PW1’s evidence on grounds that he had a cold relationship with the accused.

13. In summary, he submitted that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the accused person and urged this court to acquit him.

14. To bolster his submissions, he relied on the cases of Bhatt vs R [1957] EA 332, Republic vs Martin Thigunku [2021] eKLR and R vs Paul Lang’at [2022]eKLR.

Analysis & Determination 15. At this stage the court is to determine whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case to require the accused to be put on his defence.

16. Under section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused person committed the offence the court should, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.

17. Under section 306(2) on the other hand, when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded and the court is of the opinion that there is evidence that the accused person committed the offence, the court should proceed to put the accused to his defence and inform him of his right to call evidence in support of his case

18. What then is a prima facie case? The test of this was settled in the case of Ramanlal T. Bhatt vs Republic [1957] E.A. 332 where the court expressed itself as follows:“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is 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.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends 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…It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”

19. In Republic vs Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR a prima facie case was defined as follows: -“Prima facie” is a Latin word defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as “Sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. “Prima facie case” is defined by the same dictionary as “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”. To digest this further, in simple terms, it means the establishment of a rebuttal presumption that an accused person is guilty of the offence he/she is charged with.”

20. The court should therefore determine whether based on the evidence placed before it can convict if the accused chose not to give any evidence. It is imperative to note that the proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the standard applicable to the finding of existence of a prima facie case for the purpose of a case to answer. In May vs O’Sullivan [1955] 92 CLR 654 it was therefore held that:“When at the close of the case for the prosecution a submission is made that there is no case to answer, the question to be decided is not whether on the evidence as it stands the defendant ought to be convicted, but whether on the evidence as it stands he could lawfully be convicted. This is a really question of law.”

21. There is a danger in making definitive findings at this stage, especially where the Court is of the view that there is a case to answer is not farfetched as was appreciated by Trevelyan and Chesoni, JJ in Festo Wandera Mukando vs The Republic [1980] KLR 103:“…we once more draw attention to the inadvisability of giving reasons for holding that an accused has a case to answer. It can prove embarrassing to the court and, in an extreme case, may require an appellate court to set aside an otherwise sound judgement. Where a submission of “no case” is rejected, the court should say no more than that it is. It is otherwise where the submission is upheld when reasons should be given; for then that is the end to the case or the count or counts concerned.”

22. From the foregoing and without delving into the merits of the prosecution’s case, it is my opinion that the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused being put on the defence in terms of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024. ____________________H. M. NYAGA,JUDGE.In the presence of;State Counsel Ms OkokCourt Assistant OleperonAccused present