[2021] KEHC 5640 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The testimonies regarding the discovery of the body, the information from an informer, and the accused's arrest, when considered together, met the threshold set by precedent for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Defendant: Peter Wainaina Mungai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 43 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Accused placed on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, 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
Respondent
Peter Wainaina Mungai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant his being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient to connect the accused to the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The testimonies regarding the discovery of the body, the information from an informer, and the accused's arrest, when considered together, met the threshold set by precedent for placing an accused on his defence. The court applied the principles from Bhatt v Republic and R v Kipkering arap Koske & another, holding that the evidence, if unchallenged, could support a conviction. Therefore, under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused was placed on his defence.
Court Disposition
Accused placed on his defence under section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- The accused is placed on his defence to answer the charge of murder.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 43 OF 2012
[FORMERLY NYERI HCCR 12 OF 2010]
REPUBLIC..…................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER WAINAINA MUNGAI.............................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. The accused is 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 25th and 26th December 2009 at Kariti village, Kariti Sub-Location, Muran’ga South District of the former Central Province, jointly with others not before the court, murdered Mburu Mungai Micara.
3. He pleaded notguilty. The prosecution only called fourwitnesses. The prosecution’s case is founded largely on circumstantial evidence.
4. PW1 is a sister of the deceased and the accused. She was informed of the murder by a woman whose name she could not remember. She was however present when the police exhumed the remains from a pit nine days later. The pit was in the compound of the deceased.
5. PW2 is the area chief. He got some tips from an informer about the murder and interment of the remains in the disused pit latrine in the deceased’s compound. He passed on the information to the police. On 3rd January 2010, the same informer told him that the perpetrators of the murder were planning to exhume tohe remains to hide the evidence. The police assisted by the public excavated the pit in the morning and removed the body. PW2 and PW3 attended the postmortem examination on 20th February 2020 at the City Mortuary in Nairobi. The body was identified by PW3.
6. The accused was arrested at Makuyu Market by Corporal Mwirigi (PW4) Police Constable Malori on 11th April 2010.
7. 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 fourwitnesses, I find that the Republic has established a prima facie case against the accused.
8. 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 6th day of July 2021.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of:
The accused.
Mr. Njiraini holding brief for Mr. Kinuthia for the accused.
Ms. Adera for the Republic.
Ms. Dorcas Waichuhi & Ms. Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistants.