[2016] KEHC 3526 (KLR)
The court found that while the conviction for possession of a paper for forgery was supported by overwhelming evidence, the sentence imposed was unduly harsh given the favorable probation officer's report and the circumstances of the case. The trial magistrate misdirected himself by not considering a non-custodial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 3526 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Maina Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 119 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced to period served; appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Forgery Materials, Sentencing Principles, Appeals Against Conviction, Appeals Against Sentence
- 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
Stephen Maina Mwangi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for possession of paper for forgery was supported by the evidence.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the conviction for possession of a paper for forgery was supported by overwhelming evidence, the sentence imposed was unduly harsh given the favorable probation officer's report and the circumstances of the case. The trial magistrate misdirected himself by not considering a non-custodial sentence. The appellate court therefore reduced the sentence to the period already served, ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced to period served; appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The sentence is reduced to the period already served.
- The appellant is to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG'A
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2014
STEPHEN MAINA MWANGI ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………........ RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.881 of 2012 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Murang'a by Hon. J.Wekesa – Ag. Senior Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant,STEPHEN MAINA MWANGI, was convicted for the offence of being in possession of a paper for forgery contrary to section 359 of the Penal Code.
The particulars of the offence were that on 10th August 2012 at Kahatia market, Murarandia location of Murang'a County, without lawful authority, was found in possession of a paper intending it to resemble Kshs. 1000/= currency note.
He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
He now appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The appellant was in person. He raised five grounds of appeal that can be summarized as follows:
1. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that he was arrested for the of drinking during odd hours.
2. The sentence meted out was an afterthought.
3. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by meting out a harsh sentence.
The state opposed the appeal on conviction through M/s. Joyce Gacheru, the learned counsel, who however agreed with the appellant that the sentence was harsh in the circumstances.
Briefly the facts of this case are as follows:
When some police officers met with the appellant who was staggering due to drunkenness, they stopped and searched him. They recovered a fake currency note, the subject of this case.
In his defence the appellant denied any involvement in the offence.
This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated Case of OKENO VS. REPUBLIC 1972 EA 32.
Though the record does not show that the appellant was charged for either being drunk and disorderly or for drinking at odd hours as he puts it, there is evidence to the effect that at the time of his arrest he was drunk and staggering on the road. There is no law that stops a police officer from charging a person with another offence other than the one initially arrested for.
Having considered to place the appellant on probation, the trial magistrate misdirected self on the issue of the sentence. Since the probation officer's report was favourable to the appellant, a non custodial sentence would have been the most appropriate.
There was overwhelming evidence against the appellant. The sentence that was meted out was the maximum under section 359 of the Penal Code. The state conceded that the sentence was harsh in the circumstances and rightly so. I therefore reduce the sentence to the period served. The upshot is that the appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless if otherwise lawfully held.
DATED at MURANG'A this 19th day of July 2016
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE