[2021] KEHC 7129 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of six witnesses and the production of physical and medical evidence, had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient at this stage to require the accused to be put on their defence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7129 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Peter Mwangi Muthoni; Defendant: John Karuri Kiamari; Defendant: John Njora Irungu; Defendant: Wilson Mari Gachucha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 7 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer (section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code)
- Outcome
- accused persons placed on their defence
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Circumstantial Evidence, 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
Peter Mwangi Muthoni
Defendant
John Karuri Kiamari
Defendant
John Njora Irungu
Defendant
Wilson Mari Gachucha
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer (section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant their being put on their defence.
- 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient at this stage to link the accused to the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of six witnesses and the production of physical and medical evidence, had established a prima facie case against the accused persons. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient at this stage to require the accused to be put on their defence. The court applied the legal standards set out in Bhatt v Republic and R v Kipkering arap Koske, holding that the prosecution's case met the threshold for a case to answer under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the accused were placed on their defence to respond to the charges of murder.
Court Disposition
accused persons placed on their defence
Orders
- The accused are placed on their defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2012
[FORMERLY NYERI HCCR 10 OF 2011]
REPUBLIC.............................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER MWANGI MUTHONI.................................1ST ACCUSED
JOHN KARURI KIAMARI....................................2ND ACCUSED
JOHN NJORA IRUNGU.......................................3RD ACCUSED
WILSON MARI GACHUCHA.............................4TH ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused are charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on the night of 12th and 13th February 2011 at Ngiine village, Gakuyu Sub-Location, Gaturi Location in Muran’ga County, they murdered Stephen Karanja Mwangi.
3. They all pleaded notguilty. The prosecution lined up sixwitnesses. The prosecution’s case is founded largely upon circumstantial evidence. For instance, PW1, PW2 and PW4 were all attracted to the scene by some screams. They found the body of the deceased lying in a ditch. It had cut wounds on the head, cheeks and one ear was missing.
4. PW1 was the wife of the deceased and he testified that the 1st accused and deceased used to have quarrels and fights dating back to 2009. He had also beaten her, a matter she had reported to the police.
5. There is then the evidence of Chief Inspector Jeremiah Musyoki (PW3) who recovered a number of incriminating pieces of evidence produced as exhibits at the trial.
6. According to the Post Mortem Form (exhibit 1) produced by Dr. Kamotho Watenga (PW5), the death was caused by“asphyxiation from aspiration of blood with severe haemorrahage”.
7. Both the learned prosecution counsel; and, the learned defence counsel opted not to make submissions.
8. Applying the precedents in Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332 and R v Kipkering arap Koske & another 16 EACA 135 (1949); and, upon the digest of the evidence of all the sixwitnesses, I find that the Republic has established a prima facie case against the accused.
9. Accordingly, under the provisions of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I place the accused on his defence.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 11th day of May 2021.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open in the presence of:
Accused persons.
No appearance by counsel for the accused.
Mr. S. Mutinda for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms. Dorcas Waichuhi & Ms. Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistants.