https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10802

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT O FKENYA AT KAPENGURIA** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E014 OF 2025** **STATE …………………………………….……………… PROSECUTOR** **-V E R S U S -** **ROBERT PLIMO …………………………………..………… ACCUSED** **JUDGMENT** 1.By the information dated 11/11/2025, **Robert Plimo** was charged with the Offence of Murder, contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars of the charge are that on 23/10/2025 in Litiei Village within West Pokot County, murdered **Anastacia Lokala.** 3. The accused denied committing the offence and the case proceeded to full trial with the prosecution calling a total of four (4) witnesses in support of their case. 4. When called upon to make his defence, the accused opted to remain silent. **The Prosecution Case:** **5. PW1, Galvin Namoru** a child aged eight (8) years was taken through a voire vire examination by the court and though found to be intelligent enough, he did not understand the meaning of the oath. He testified as PW1 and gave unsworn evidence. 6. PW1 stated that on 23/10/2025, while at home with his mother Anastacia Lokala, they were about to sleep when Plimo opened the door and started to beat the mother using a jembe stick and hit her all over as she screamed; that he hit her on the back with a panga which he had got from his house, cut her on the leg and abdomen; that Plimo took a D-light torch from their house which he used; that he then took the mother out of the house; that he ran away to Davy’s house (PW2) and Davy went to look for Plimo; PW1 identified Plimo as a neighbour. He did not know why Plimo assaulted the mother. **7. PW2 David Pkemoi** knew Anastasia as a wife to his nephew. He also knew Robert Plimo the accused. He recalled that on 23/10/2025, while asleep in his house, he heard a knock and on opening, found his neighbour Yeko together with PW1 Galvin. He was informed that Plimo had attacked and killed Anastacia and together with Yeko and another, went to where Anastacia lived; that Plimo lived near Anastacia. He peeped into Anastacia’s house through the window and found Plimo inside Anastacia’s house and he was holding a bible; that Plimo came out of the house with a bible, D-light and a stick. He came out, flashed at them and he asked Plimo where Anastacia was and he said she was in the maize farm that Plimo led them where the body was. He flashed a torch at Anastacia’s (body) and noticed that she had many cut wounds and was dead; that she had injuries to the neck, head, right side of the ribs. They went to inform Plimo’s uncle, William Siwareng that Plimo had killed somebody. They reported to the police, went back to the scene with police officers and found Plimo in his house. He was arrested and a blood-stained panga was found outside the house. PW2 said that photographs were taken of the scene. He however did not see the panga and photographs in court. **8. PW3 Leonard Wamalwa** identified Accused as a neighbour; that Accused lived with his grandfather. He also knew Anastacia, who was his friend’s wife. On 23/10/2025 about 11.00p.m. while in bed, he received a call from David Lorokol (PW2) who informed him that he had information that Anastacia had been assaulted. He found PW1 with Yeko and they went to the scene; that Plimo came out of Anastacia’s house holding a stick, and had tied a sheet on himself and had a D-light torch. On seeing them, he went back into the house but came out with a bible, stick and D-light torch and on being asked what had happened, he said he was reading the bible; that he claimed to have been sent by the bible to kill and he took them to where Anastacia’s body was. Using a torch, they saw injuries on the body of the deceased, Anastacia. They later went to report to Makutano police station. They went back to the scene with police, photographs were taken and a panga was recovered near Plimo’s house, stuck in the ground and police took it. **9. PW4 PC Philemon Kiptoo** who was the Investigating Officer, recalled that on 24/10/2025 about midnight, they proceeded to a murder scene at Lityei area having received a report from Daniel and Leonard. At the scene, they recovered a blood-stained panga stuck to the ground between two houses. They found a female body lying in a nearby maize farm with multiple physical injuries oozing blood; photographs were taken of the scene and they arrested a suspect who had locked himself in a house. The body was taken to Kapenguria Hospital mortuary. 10. On 27/10/2025, PW4 accompanied family members to the mortuary for purposes of post mortem and Doctor Kirema who performed the post mortem opined that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding. PW4 took accused for mental assessment on 31/10/2025 and he was found to be fit to stand trial. 11. On 22/12/2025 (PW4) took the panga recovered at the scene to the Government Analyst and he received a report from the Government Chemist. He produced the panga as P.Exh.No.6 PW4 confirmed that if one speaks to accused at close range, he is able to hear and respond. 12. The post mortem and Government Analyst Report, photographs and scene of crime certificate were produced in evidence by consent as P.Exh. Nos. 1,2,3,4 & 5. 13. I wish to point out that PW2 and 3 who knew accused told the court that accused can hear and communicate if spoken to at close proximity. Otherwise, he uses sign language. It was demonstrated in court and indeed accused could hear if one shouts. However, the court used a sign language interpreter Lavender, whom accused also ably communicated with. 14. After the close of the prosecution case, the accused was called upon to defend himself and he opted to remain silent which is one of the options available for an accused. 15. The fact that accused remained silent in his defence does not in any way lessen the duty placed on the Prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The term ‘**beyond reasonable doubt’** was defined by Lord **Denning in Miller -V- Ministry of Persons (1947) 2 ALL ER 372** when he stated as follows:- **"That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But nothing short of that will suffice.”** 16. This being a Murder charge under Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code, the Prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following, 1. **Proof of death;** 2. **Proof that the death was caused by the unlawful act or omission of the accused;** 3. **Proof of malice aforethought.** **1. Proof of death** 17. The death of Anastacia Lokala is not in dispute PW2,3 and 4 all saw the deceased’s body lying in the maize garden. The gory pictures of the deceased’s body with multiple wounds all over the body were produced in evidence. The post mortem was produced in evidence by consent as P.ExhNo. (1) it included all the injuries that the deceased sustained which include deep lacerations on the scalp, Deep lacerations extending to the vertebral column affecting the spinal cord; deep chest lacerations exposing the abdominal and thoracic cavity; deep lacerations on the right chest extending to the abdominal cavity and lacerations of the liver, deep lacerations on the forehead, nape of the neck extending to vertebral column, lacerated cervical spine, and cord. The Doctor formed the opinion that the cause of death was exsanguination secondary to deep lacerations to the nape of the neck and thoracic abdominal region. He signed a death certificate. 18. Following the above listed injuries, it is obvious that the deceased did not die of natural causes but injuries were inflicted on her by somebody. **2. Whether the accused caused the deceased’s death: -** 19. The only eye witness to the assault on the deceased is the deceased’s son, PW1, who was then aged eight (8) years. He gave unsworn evidence that he (PW1) saw accused assaulting his mother with a jembe stick and panga that accused had their D-light torch. PW1’s testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. He is the one who went to inform PW2 (Davy) about the attack on the deceased and PW2 asked PW3 to accompany him to the scene. PW2 and 3’s testimonies were consistent that they found accused in the deceased’s house with a D-light torch which PW1 had seen him with. Both PW2 and 3 testified that accused led them to the maize garden next to the house where they found the deceased’s mutilated body. Although PW1 is a child of tender age, his testimony was materially corroborated by PW2 and 3 and it was unshaken. When PW4 went to the scene following a report from PW2 and 3, accused was arrested in a house near the scene. This court has no doubt that PW1 saw accused assault his mother and he informed PW2 who came to the scene in company of PW3 and another and they confirmed the assault. Accused was known to PW 1, 2 and 3 as a neighbour. This court is satisfied that accused was sufficiently identified as the perpetrator. **20. 3. Proof of malice aforethought;** **Malice aforethought is defined in Section 206 of the Penal Code as** **(a) an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not;** **(b) knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused;** **(c) an intent to commit a felony;** **(d) an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony.** 21. In the case of **Rex -V- Tubere S/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63, the** former Court of Eastern Africa stated thus on the issue **“It (the court) has a duty to perform in considering the weapon used and the part of the body injured, in arriving at a conclusion as to whether malice aforethought has been established, and it will be obvious that ordinarily, an inference of malice will flow more readily from the case, say, of a spear or knife than from the use of a stick”** 22. The court has had a chance to view the photographs taken of the deceased’s body. The injuries on the deceased’s body are all captured in the post mortem form. The blood stained panga found at the scene (P.exh.No. 1) was said to have DNA matching that of the deceased. It must be the weapon that the accused used in assaulting the deceased. From the gory photographs, there is no other result that the accused wanted to achieve except the death of the deceased. This court is satisfied that malice aforethought flows from the weapon used and the many times that the accused hacked the deceased, on the head, the spinal cord, the chest, and stomach. 23. Malice aforethought has been proved to the required standard. 24. In the end, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused murdered the deceased. 25. Accused is found guilty of the offence of Murder as charged and is convicted accordingly. **Judgment dated, signed and delivered at Kapenguria this 15th day of July, 2026.** **HON. R. WENDOH. JUDGE.** Judgment read in the presence of:- Prosecution Counsel – Ms. Koech Mr. Lowasikou for Accused Accused - present Juma/Hellen-Court Assistants. Lavender – sign language interpreter