Martin Muchangi Njeru v Director of Public Prosecutions

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3 OF 2017 MARTIN MUCHANGI NJERU................................APPLICANT VERSUS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.......RESPONDENT RULING 1. This application for revision seeks for review of sentences in two counts. The accused was charged and convicted of two offences. Firstly, count 1 was of detaining a female for immoral purposes contrary to Section 151 of the Penal Code. Count II was of rape contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment on each count with the sentences running concurrently. 2. The grounds supporting this application are that the applicant has already served one year sentence and that he has reformed. He says that he has a big family responsibility because his father is irresponsible and a drunkard. It is alleged that he has chased the mother of the applicant from the family land so that he can sell it out. At home is the applicant's only brother aged 7 years and is incapable of saving the situation of the intended sale of the family land. 3. The respondent opposed the application on ground that the sentences imposed were within the law. It was contended that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable in this application because the applicant has not pointed out any mistake, irregularity or illegality committed by the trial magistrate. 4. In an application of this nature, it is imperative that the relevant provision of the law be examined vis a vis the grounds in support of the application. 5. Section 362 provides:The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 6. This court is empowered by the law to correct any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, order or sentence that may have been committed or imposed by a subordinate court. 7. The reason relied on by the applicant are mitigating factors normally given after conviction but before the court passes sentence. The applicant in this case was accorded a chance to mitigate before passing sentence. 8. I have looked at Section 151 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act and I find that the sentences of ten (10) years were within the law. The proceedings and the judgment of the court does not reveal any irregularity, impropriety or mistake to warrant revision by this court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this application. 10. It is hereby dismissed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT EMBU THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. F. MUCHEMI

page 1 of 2