Republic/State v Musyoka (Criminal Case E021 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 19587 (KLR) (25 September 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19587 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE E021 OF 2022 EN MAINA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC/STATE ............................................................................. PROSECUTION AND JOHN MUTUA MUSYOKA ........................................................................ ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused person is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. The particulars of the offence are that on the 10th July 2022 at Nthuluni village, Ngamba Sub-location, Miu location in Mwala Sub-County within Machakos County, murdered Jackson Musyoka Nzoka alias Malonza. 3. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge whereupon the prosecution called nine (9) witnesses in an effort to prove its case. 4. The sum total of the evidence of the ten prosecution witnesses is that on the material day, the accused confronted the deceased, who is his father, demanding to be told why the deceased had caused their mother to run away from home. The deceased did not respond but instead he went into the house and came out with a catapult which he used to assault the accused. According to PW1 the accused’s sister, the accused took to his heels. The deceased chased him for a while then went back and locked himself in his house. It was then that the accused returned with a plank and started knocking on the deceased’s door. The deceased opened the door with a plank in his hand to hit the accused but the accused hit him on the head with the plank which he was carrying. The deceased fell and would not respond when PW1called him. PW1 ran for help to a nearby church where her mother happened to be. They went and took the accused to Muthetheni Police Post and the deceased to Muthetheni Dispensary. He was referred to Machakos Level 5 Hospital where he subsequently succumbed to the injuries. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19587/eng@2025-09-25 1
page 1 of 3
5. PW2, the accused’s mother, testified that when she went to the scene after being called by PW1 she found the deceased bleeding profusely from a wound on his head. This was corroborated by PW3 whose assistance PW1 also sought. 6. PW5, a Pathologist testified that she performed a post mortem on the body of the deceased at the Machakos Funeral Home on 14th July 2022. She testified that he had lost a lot of blood and there was evidence of partial loss of oxygen. She removed a bloodstained bandage from his head and noted several injuries on the head, a fracture on the skull and bleeding in the brain. After the postmortem she came to the conclusion that the cause of death was head injury secondary to blunt force trauma. 7. PW6 a government analyst testified that she was tasked to analyze the wooden plank to confirm if it had human blood. She stated that upon examining the plank she found it was stained with human blood. She confirmed that the DNA profile from the blood on the wooden plank matched the blood specimen of the deceased. 8. The post mortem and government analysts report were produced in evidence. 9. Once investigations were concluded, the accused was charged with this offence. 10. After the close of the prosecution’s case, Counsel for both sides elected to address this court on whether the accused had a case to answer, and did that by way of written submissions. 11. Ms Nyauncho, for the State, submitted that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to warrant this court to put the accused person on her defence. She submitted that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 placed the accused at the scene of the crime. And that all the ingredients of murder had been proved by the prosecution witnesses. She contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and had established a prima facie case. She urged this court to place the accused on his defence. 12. On part Mr. Mutinda, Advocate submitted that the cause of the deceased’s death remained speculative and unconvincing due to inconsistencies in the evidence of the pathologist PW5. Counsel argued that the evidence was manifestly unreliable and lacked probative value and did not meet the threshold under Sections 48 (1) (2) and 49 of the Evidence Act on admissibility and value of expert witness. Further, that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the accused as there was no proof of malice aforethought; that the forensic and medical evidence was unreliable; the investigative process was deeply flawed. Counsel urged this court acquit the accused at this stage. 13. At this stage, Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code enjoins this court to determine if there is evidence that the accused committed the offence. Should the answer be in the affirmative then Section 306(2) requires that the accused be put on his defence. 14. The elements of the offence of murder are: the death of the deceased, the cause of that death, malice aforethought and the identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. The offence may be proved through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. 15. In this case, the death of the deceased and the cause of that death are not in doubt as there is evidence by PW1 and other witnesses that the deceased in fact died and that he died as a result of head injury secondary blunt force trauma. The death and cause of death are corroborated by the post-mortem report. 16. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is my finding that there is direct evidence to connect the accused person with this offence. The evidence of PW1and PW2 coupled with the other witnesses confirms that the deceased died from an unlawful act and places the accused https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19587/eng@2025-09-25 2
page 2 of 3
person at the scene and time of incident and the circumstances. I am satisfied therefore that he ought to enter his defence as required by Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025. E N MAINA JUDGE In presence of: Miss Kaburu for the State. No appearance for Mr. Mutinda for the accused. Geoffrey Court Assistant/Interpreter. The accused(online from Machakos GK Prison) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19587/eng@2025-09-25 3
page 3 of 3