REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2003 EDWARD OTIENO ODUOR ………………………………..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC …………………………………………………..PROSECUTOR (APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL SIAYA SRM CR. CASE NO. 481 OF 2002) JUDGMENT Edward Otieno Oduor was charged before the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Siaya in Criminal Case No. 481 of 2002 with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He denied the charge and was therefore tried before Mr. F.M. Omenta Senior Resident Magistrate who at the end of the trial found him guilty of simple robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. Upon conviction he was sentenced to 4 years with 2 strokes and it is against both his conviction and sentence that he has lodged this appeal. It was alleged that on 22/6/2002 at Akala market in Ndori sub/location within Siaya District of the Nyanza Province jointly with others not before the Court the appellant robbed Samson Ombima Ochieng of Cash Kshs. 2,000/- and immediately before or immediately after the robbery he used violence to the said Samson
page 1 of 2
Ombima Ochieng. The said Samson Ombima Ochieng testified as PW1 and said that on 22/6/2002 he went to a latrine at the said market and while he was relieving himself a man came and held him by the neck and robbed him of kshs. 2,000/- . PW1 said that he raised an alarm and the man ran away. PW2 a water attendant at the said market told the Court that while he was at his place of work he heard screams from a latrine and immediately thereafter he saw the appellant whom he knew emerge from the said latrine and was followed by PW1 who was screaming that he had been robbed of kshs. 2,000/- and wanted help. PW2 said that he told PW1 that the person who had robbed him was called Otieno and used to prepare soup using legs of cows. PW2 said that the assistant chief went to see him alter on and he told him that the man who had robbed PW1 was Otieno. PW3 Assistant Chief of the local area received the complaints of PW1 who told him that PW2 was his witness. PW3 said that he went to see PW2 who told him that the person PW1 was following was the appellant. The appellant admitted that he was at the said toilet but he denied that he robbed the complainant. I find that the appellant was convicted on sound evidence. He was properly identified by PW2 who saw him. PW2 told PW1 and PW3 the name of the appellant. Appellant admitted that he was to prepare soup. The appeal is therefore without merit and the same is dismissed. Dated and delivered this 26th April 2004. B.K. TANUI JUDGE
page 2 of 2