[2013] KEHC 104 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The offence of making a document without authority was not established as no document examiner was called to testify. There was no evidence connecting the appellant to the theft of the motor vehicle, as the watchman...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 104 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Zulfikar alias Sidique Abdul; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 5 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Stealing Motor Vehicle, Making Document Without Authority, Obtaining by False Pretences, Standard of Proof, Evaluation of 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
Zulfikar alias Sidique Abdul
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of stealing a motor vehicle beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the offence of making a document without authority was established in the absence of expert testimony.
- 3 Whether the offence of obtaining money by false pretences was proved against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The offence of making a document without authority was not established as no document examiner was called to testify. There was no evidence connecting the appellant to the theft of the motor vehicle, as the watchman who guarded the vehicle was not called as a witness and there were inconsistencies in the registration particulars. The evidence linking the appellant to the alleged sum obtained was also doubtful, as the document relied upon was questionable. The court further observed that the transaction appeared to be civil in nature, and the criminal prosecution was unwarranted....
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The convictions are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2011
ZULFIKAR alias SIDIQUE ABDUL……...……… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………………RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentencing in Criminal Case No. 538 OF 2000 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi by L. Nyambura on 29th September 2010)
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted of 3 offences.
a) Stealing a motor vehicle contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code
b) Making a document without authority contrary to section 357(a) of the Penal Code and
c) Obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
He was then sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for the offence of stealing a motor vehicle and for one year imprisonment each for offences of making a document without authority and obtaining money by false pretences. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, he lodged an appeal.
In his petition of appeal, the appellant faulted the learned trial magistrate for relying on circumstantial evidence which did not point to his guilt and that he was convicted on a document produced by PW2 which did not connect him with the offence. He further alleged that the court did not satisfy itself that PW2 the complainant, had Ksh. 500,000/- which he allegedly gave the appellant. He also complained that the court failed to take into consideration material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which could have led to his acquittal. Further, the court failed to take into consideration his defence which was steadfast and not contradictory unlike the prosecution evidence.
In the pendance of this appeal, the appellant applied to be released on bail pending the hearing. Ochieng J, heard this application on being satisfied that the appeal was arguable released the appellant on cash bail of Ksh. 400,000/-
This appeal was argued by way of written submissions on behalf of the appellant and a reply by the State. I have read the submissions on record. I do not deem it necessary to go through the entire evidence because when the application for bail pending appeal was being argued before Ochieng J, the learned counsel for the Republic conceded that the appeal had overwhelming chances of success and set out the reasons for so believing.
I can only observe her position is contrary to her learned colleague from the same office has taken during the hearing of this appeal. That notwithstanding, I am persuaded by the observations raised by the learned counsel for the Republic when the application for bail pending appeal was being prosecuted.
The offence of making a document without authority was not proved as the document examiner was not called to testify. The theft of the motor vehicle was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt because in the first place, there was no evidence that the appellant had any connection whatsoever with the removal of the motor vehicle from its parking where the same was under guard by a watchman who was never called to testify.
There were also inconsistencies about the evidence of registration particulars of the vehicle allegedly stolen by the appellant. The connection of the appellant to the amount said to have been obtained is also in doubt, in view of the fact that the document upon which the same was alleged to have been advanced has been cast in doubt.
Additionally, this appears to have been a civil transaction which for some reason which is not relevant in this appeal has led to the criminal prosecution of the appellant. Whatever the case, the offences leveled against the appellant were never proved beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore his conviction of the three offences was unsafe.
Having said so, this appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentences set aside. I note that the appellant is out on bail pending the determination of his appeal. The appeal having been allowed, the terms of his release on bail are hereby vacated.
Orders accordingly.
SIGNED, DATED and DELIVERED in open Court this 24th day of October, 2013.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE