REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39 OF 2012 REPUBLIC...........................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS MONICA IMONI KARUBE...........................................ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused is charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars are that on 21st May 2012 at Burnt Forest trading centre, Uasin Gishu District of the Rift Valley Province, she murdered Daniel Mbugua Githinji. 3. She pleaded not guilty. The prosecution called eight witnesses. The accused is the widow of the deceased. I have considered the direct and circumstantial evidence surrounding the homicide in this case. PW1 testified of the turbulent relationship between the accused and the deceased. They had cohabited for only three months. There was evidence of a struggle outside their house before the deceased was stabbed and died. 4. I have in particular paid close attention to the evidence of PW1, PW2 PW3, PW4, PW7 (the pathologist) and PW8. I have also taken into account the written submissions by the learned Prosecution Counsel filed on 13 th March 2017. The learned defence counsel elected not to make submissions at this stage. 5. On the summation of the evidence of the eight witnesses; and, on the authorities of Bhatt v Republic [1957] E.A. 332 and R v Kipkering arap Koske & another 16 EACA 135 (1949), I am persuaded that the Republic has established a prima facie case. 6. Accordingly, under the provisions of section 306 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I now put the accused on her defence. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 25th day of April 2017. KANYI KIMONDO JUDGE Ruling read in open court in the presence ofAccused. Ms. Mumu for the Republic. Mr. J. Kemboi, Court Clerk.
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.