[2016] KEHC 5083 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including a dying declaration and circumstantial evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence was deemed credible and adequate to require the accused to answer the charge. The court, following established legal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5083 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Simon Gitonga Ngararu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2016
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 2 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to make his defence.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Dying Declaration, Burden of Proof, Evidence Evaluation
- Source Language
- english
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
Simon Gitonga Ngararu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at 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, including the dying declaration, is sufficient and credible to support the charge of murder at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence, including a dying declaration and circumstantial evidence, to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The evidence was deemed credible and adequate to require the accused to answer the charge. The court, following established legal principles, refrained from detailed analysis at this stage to avoid prejudicing the defence, but was satisfied that the threshold for putting the accused on his defence had been met.
Court Disposition
Accused found to have a case to answer and called upon to make his defence.
Orders
- The accused is found to have a case to answer and is hereby called upon to make his defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2 OF 2012 (MURDER)
REPUBLIC……....................................................... PROSECUTION
VERSUS
SIMON GITONGA NGARARU...........................................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
The accused faces a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 and 204 of the Penal Code to which offence he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution called a total of nine (9) witnesses who testified in support of the charge. At the close of the prosecution case, Mr. E.K. Njage for R. Njeru for the accused filed submissions of no case to answer to which the State responded to by filing their own.
The defence submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses witnessed the incident. It was argued that the deceased had just arrived home when he died, suggesting that he could have been injured elsewhere.
From PW2's evidence that the accused and the deceased related well with each other before the incident, it follows that motive was not established. There was contradiction of PW1's evidence with that of PW2 on the relationship between the deceased and the accused.
The evidence of identification was not water tight according to the defence. The defence urged the court to acquit the accused under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The State Counsel Ms. Nandwa submitted that the prosecution had established that the accused had a case to answer. Firstly, she stated that the deceased made a dying declaration and gave the name of the of the accused as the person who had attacked him as could be derived from PW2's evidence.
The dying declaration satisfies the requirements of Section 33 of the Evidence Act and complies with the principles laid down in th case of CHOGE VS REPUBLIC [1985] KLR. It was held that no corroboration is required for a dying declaration to support a conviction provided that the court ensures that caution is exercised in admitting such evidence.
The counsel urged the court to take into consideration the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which supports the charge and find that the accused has a case to answer.
The prosecution have the onus of proving at this stage that there is sufficient evidence to support the charge and that the evidence is credible.
The testimony of PW1 is that the accused had already assaulted her husband who is his brother before the deceased was clobbered. She saw him armed with something like a stick coming out of the deceased's house before she saw the deceased bleeding profusely from the head.
PW2 also saw the accused coming out of her house where she lived with the deceased. Prior to that she had heard the deceased screaming that “Gitonga” had killed him.
In addition to the direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is admissible.
With that brief summary of the evidence, I do not intend to analyze the evidence in support of the charges to avoid pre-empting the defence of the accused. It is trite law that a detailed ruling is not desirable in a case where the court find that the accused has a case to answer.
It was held in the case of ANTONY NJUE NJERU VS REPUBLIC [2006] eKLR that:-
“We wish to point out here that it is undesirable to give reasoned ruling at the close of the prosecution case, as the learned Judge did here unless the Court concerned is acquitting the accused person.”
in view of the above decision, I wish to hereby state that I have perused the evidence on record and I am satisfied that it is sufficient to support the charges.
I find that the accused has a case to answer and is hereby called upon to make his defence.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Njeru for appellant
Mr. Onjoro for State
Appellant