High Court 2066 of 2017

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE NO. 44 OF 2016 REPUBLIC....................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS STANLEY JUMA BARAZA.................ACCUSED RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER 1. The Accused Person, Stanley Juma Baraza (“Accused Person”) is charged with murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code as read together with section 204 of the Penal Code. He is accused of unlawfully killing George Mbugua Mbogo (“Deceased”) on 17/05/2015 at Kwambira Trading Centre in Limuru Sub County within Kiambu County. 2. The Prosecution called seven witnesses. The narrative emerging from the Prosecution witnesses is that the Deceased was walking home on the material night at about 1:00am in the company of three friends. They were, apparently, quite drunk. They passed by the Total Petrol Station where the Accused Person was employed as a guard. After a brief disagreement with his colleagues, the Deceased was left alone. He lit up a cigarette and approached the Petrol Station. The Accused Person demanded that he put off the cigarette. When the Deceased declined, the Accused Person assaulted him with a rungu– hitting him at least two times in the ribs and once in the head. The Deceased fell upon the third blow. He was later proncouned dead at Tigoni Hospital. 3. Duncan Mugo Mburu was the Accused Person’s colleague at the Petrol Station. By his testimony, he was barely five metres away when he saw the incident unfold before his very eyes. He was the only eye witness to the incident and provided the pivotal evidence linking the Accused Person to the charged crime. 4. Karanja Mwangi Gakuru, another colleague, confirmed the presence of the Accused Person at the scene that night while PC Vincent Langat made the arrest on the night of the incident after the Accused Person had been attacked by a mob. PC David Njogu was the Investigating Officer who also testified in the trial. Finally, Dr. Peter Ndegwa testified that the cause of death was severe injury to the head consistent with blunt force trauma. 5. At the conclusion of the Prosecution case, the Defence urged me to conclude that the Prosecution had not proved its case sufficiently to put the Accused Person on his defence. The Defence argues that the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence and that most of the evidence is contradictory. 6. Suffice it to say that after analyzing the evidence presented by the Prosecution, and taking into consideration that at this stage my task is to determine, as a matter of law, if the Prosecution has placed sufficient reasonable evidence – without taking any conclusive view of the credibility and probative value of the evidence presented – to warrant putting the Accused Person on his Defence. See Bhatt – vs- R [1957] EA 332. 7. At this stage in the proceedings, the test is whether, as a matter of law, the Prosecution has adduced reasonable evidence of the matter in respect of which it has the burden of proof. In my view, the Prosecution has placed enough material to make this a fit case to require the Accused Person to respond to the evidence adduced.

page 1 of 2