[2014] KEHC 4703 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of two years imprisonment for grievous harm was already lenient given the gravity of the injuries inflicted on the complainant, which included a fracture classified as maim. The appellant, though a first offender, had no justification for the assault, and the trial magistrate had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4703 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Muriithi Muthoni; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 35 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Sentencing, Appeal on Sentence, Identification Evidence
- 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
Samuel Muriithi Muthoni
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of two years imprisonment for grievous harm was appropriate in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's mitigation and claim of reformation warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of two years imprisonment for grievous harm was already lenient given the gravity of the injuries inflicted on the complainant, which included a fracture classified as maim. The appellant, though a first offender, had no justification for the assault, and the trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing. The appellate court held that there was no basis to interfere with the sentence, especially since the appellant had withdrawn his appeal against conviction and only sought reduction of sentence on grounds of reformation. The appeal on sentence was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of two years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2013
SAMUEL MURIITHI MUTHONI……….........................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………..………………….............…..…..RESPONDENT
From original conviction and sentence in Cr. Case No. 100 of 2012 at the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Runyenjes by M. OBIERO – PM on 12TH JUNE 2013
J U D G M E N T
SAMUEL MURIITHI MUTHONIthe Appellant was charged with the offence of Grievous Harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code.
The Particulars of the charge were as follows;
SAMUEL MUREITHI MUTHONI: On the 25th day of November 2012 at Kiringa village, Kiringa sub-location in Embu County, unlawfully did grievous harm to Robert Mureithi Njue.
The matter was fully heard and the Appellant convicted and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment.
He was dissatisfied with the Judgment and filed this appeal. His main grounds are;
Violation of his Constitutional rights when he was held in police custody for over 24 hours.
That the Court relied on the evidence of a single witness
No weapon was recovered from him
His defence was rejected
When the appeal came for hearing he withdrew his appeal against conviction and only argued the appeal against sentence saying he had reformed. His appeal on sentence was opposed by the State through M/s Ing’ahizu who submitted that the sentence was too lenient.
An evaluation of the evidence clearly places the Appellant at the Locus quo. He was identified by PW1 and PW2 as one of the people who beat PW1. The medical evidence by PW4 also confirmed that PW1 had suffered a fracture of the left arm (EXB1). The injury was classified as Maim.His defence was well considered but it did not displace the Prosecution evidence.
The Appellant withdrew his appeal against conviction. He is asking the Court to reduce his sentence of 2 years.
As clearly observed by the learned trial Magistrate while sentencing the Appellant there was no reason why the Appellant assaulted PW1. The learned trial Magistrate stated at page 14 lines 21-25 as follows;
“I have also noted that the accused person is a first offender. However, I have considered the injuries which the accused person inflicted on the complainant’s body and I am of the opinion that the same were serious and there was no reason why the accused attacked the complainant. As such I am of the opinion the accused person does not deserve leniency. I do sentence him to serve two (2) years Imprisonment”.
The sentence for Grievous Harm is life imprisonment. The sentence of 2 years was too lenient considering the injuries he inflicted on PW1. He was lucky to have escaped with such a light sentence and he should be contented with it. The upshot is that the appeal is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT EMBU IN OPEN COURT THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2014
H.I. ONG'UDI
J U D G E
In the presence of;
M/s Mbae for State
Appellant
Kirong/Mutero – C/c