[2017] KEHC 1438 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment for robbery under Section 296(1) of the Penal Code was within the statutory limit of 14 years and was, in fact, lenient. The applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or mistake in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1438 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samson Ndungu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 2 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Robbery Offences, Criminal Procedure Code Section 362, Custodial Vs Non Custodial Sentence
- 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
Samson Ndungu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal, improper, or irregular under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant's circumstances justify revision of the custodial sentence to a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment for robbery under Section 296(1) of the Penal Code was within the statutory limit of 14 years and was, in fact, lenient. The applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or mistake in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code are limited to correcting illegality, impropriety, or irregularity, none of which were present in this case. Consequently, there were no grounds to interfere with the sentence, and the application for revision was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2 OF 2017
SAMSON NDUNGU...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This is an application for revision brought under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code it seeks for review of the sentence of Hon. M.N. Gicheru, Chief Magistrate Embu. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of robbery contrary to Section 296(1) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
2. The applicant states that he is satisfied with the conviction but prays for a revision of the sentence. He states that he is a first offender and that he has been incarcerated during his trial. It is his plea for the time he has been in prison he has reformed due to the harsh conditions of prison life. He is the sole bread winner in the family and he has already served 1/3 of his sentence. He further states he has an asthmatic condition which has been made worse by the conditions in prison. He pleads for a non-custodial sentence.
3. The respondent opposed the application arguing that the applicant was given a lenient sentence for a capital offence. He does not fault the court for any mistake, illegality or impropriety in passing sentence and the court has no grounds to interfere with the sentence. He has not annexed any medical record to show that he suffers from asthma. That notwithstanding there is adequate medical facilities in prison to treat his condition.
4. The purpose of Section 362 is to correct any illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the irregularity of any proceedings of a subordinate court.
5. Section 362 provides:
The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.
6. It was held in the case of Republic Vs Kiritta KLR [2008] 614 that under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court can only interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court if the same is illegal or improper.
7. An offence under Section 296 (1) carries a sentence of 14 years imprisonment. The sentence of three years meted by the learned magistrate was within the law. I agree with the state counsel that the sentence was very lenient.
8. The applicant does not accuse the magistrate of an illegality, impropriety or mistake in passing sentence. The facts and the circumstances of this application do not fall under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. It is my considered opinion that the trial court did no commit any illegality or impropriety in its finding, in passing the sentence or order.
10. I find no merit in this application and dismiss it accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Applicant present in person
Ms. Nandwa for respondent