Richard Mutie Mbindyo v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2015 RICHARD MUTIE MBINDYO.............……...……..........APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC ………………........………….…………… RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Kitui Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 510 of 2015 by Hon. A. S. Lesootia S R M on 09/06/15) JUDGMENT JUDGMENT 1. Richard Mutie Mbindyo, the Appellant was charged with the offence of Stealing contrary to Section 268 as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence were that on 2nd day of June, 2015 at about 2.00 p.m. at Ivovoa Village in Katulani District within Kitui County he stole one iron box valued at Kshs. 500/= the property of Johneck Mutio Mbindyo. 2. He pleaded guilty to the charge. He was convicted and sentenced to serve eighteen (18) months imprisonment. 3. Being dissatisfied with the sentence thereof he mitigates on the same on the grounds that: His mother passed on; The alleged stolen property was a family iron box which he had locked up inside his room in their homestead; The Complainant, his step-mother framed him up in this case because of hatred that she has towards him. 4. In response thereto, the State/Respondent through State Counsel Ms. Awour conceded to the appeal. She stated that nature of the offence and value of the item stolen should be taken into consideration. 5. I have re-considered what transpired at the trial court. The Appellant having admitted the charge could only appeal on the legality of sentence. 6. Facts presented reveal that the iron-box that purportedly belonged to the Appellant’s step-mother and was found in the Accused person’s house was valued at Kshs. 500/=. 7. In the case of Kyalo vs. Republic (2009) KLR 325, the Court of Appeal identified relevant factors for consideration in sentencing as those facts that mitigate for a lenient sentence like the Appellant being a first offender. 8. The Appellant herein was a first offender, and the value of the item stolen was negligible. In the premises I find it a case that calls for interference with the sentence. In the result the appeal is meritorious. I do reduce the sentence to the term already served (nine (9) months imprisonment). 9. The Appellant shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.

page 1 of 2