[2019] KEHC 3003 (KLR)
The court found that, upon careful consideration of the prosecution evidence as a whole, a prima facie case had been established against the accused person. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine the guilt of the accused but only to assess whether there is sufficient evidence on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 3003 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic of Kenya; Defendant: Raphael Matengo Chiaji
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 21 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and placed on his defence.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure, Case to Answer
- 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 of Kenya
Applicant
Raphael Matengo Chiaji
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Case to Answer Under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused to warrant being placed on his defence.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution connects the accused to the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, upon careful consideration of the prosecution evidence as a whole, a prima facie case had been established against the accused person. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not required to determine the guilt of the accused but only to assess whether there is sufficient evidence on record to require the accused to present a defence. The court held that delving into the merits of the evidence in depth would prejudice the accused. Accordingly, the accused was found to have a case to answer under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and was placed on his defence.
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 under Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and is placed on his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 21 OF 2018 [MURDER]
(CORAM: HON. R.E. ABURILI - J)
STATE……………………………..……...……….……...……PROSECUTION
VERSUS
RAPHAEL MATENGO CHIAJI…………...………………………ACCUSED
RULING ON CASE TO ANSWER UNDER SECTION 306 (2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
1. The accused person herein Raphael Matengo Chiaji stands charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. This is as per the information dated 9/10/2018 signed by David M. Okachi, Senior Principal Prosecution Counsel, Siaya County for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The accused took plea on 17/10/2018 denying the charge. The hearing commenced on 18/12/2018 as scheduled.
3. The Prosecution called 10 witnesses who testified on oath and on 22/10/2019 the Prosecution closed its case.
4. The Defence counsel, Mr. Mirembe submitted contending that the Prosecution had not proved its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. He urged the court to acquit the accused at this stage.
5. It was submitted that the prosecution did not call one Kevin Ayoma to corroborate PW2’s testimony and that there was contradiction in the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that the prosecution evidence was not clear and that there was no indication as to where the deceased was between 18th and 22nd (sic) when he was found dead. It was contended that the evidence on record did not connect the accused to the offence and that treatment notes are inconsistent.
6. Counsel relied on several authorities and submitted that suspicion however strong cannot lead to a conviction. He urged the court to acquit the accused person and set him at liberty.
7. Prosecution counsel Mr. Namasake holding brief for Mr. David Okachi relied on the testimonies of witnesses on record.
8. I have considered the submissions by Defence counsel Mr. Mirembe and the evidence adduced on record by the ten prosecution witnesses.
9. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution throughout the trial to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and that burden does not shift to the accused person. However, at this stage, the court is not expected to determine the guilt of the accused person. What is required of this court is to determine whether on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, a prima facie case has been established against the accused person to warrant him being placed on his defence.
10. A prima facie case is not necessarily one that must succeed but that there is evidence on record requiring a defence thereto.
11. Having carefully considered the prosecution evidence as a whole, and as delving into the in-depth merits thereof will prejudice the accused person, I am satisfied that the prosecution have established a prima facie case against the accused person necessitating his being placed on his defence. Accordingly, I find and hold that the accused has a case to answer, in accordance with Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is hereby explained to the accused person.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Siaya, this 28th Day of October 2019.
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Okachi SPPC for State
Accused person present
Mr. Mirembe Advocate for the accused person
CA: Brenda and Modestar