Republic v Violet Naharu Rayani & 1 other

9. The Learned Prosecution Counsel asked the court to give the two Accused Persons the maximum sentence for murder. 10. She said the two took away a human life without justification. 11. The Learned Prosecution Counsel said the Accused Person should have taken into account the factors they have stated in their mitigation before they committed the offence. 12. This court has taken into account the mitigation as given by the Defence Counsel on behalf of the Accused Persons. 13. There is evidence that the deceased was killed in his own bedroom where he is presumed to be safe. 14. The Accused Persons disposed of the body and maintained a lie that the deceased had travelled to Nakuru to look for a job. 15. It is also noted that the Accused Persons who maintain their innocence are not all remorseful for the offence they committed. 16. Murder is one of the most serious offences known in our criminal law. Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes a mandatory death sentence, although following the decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic (2017) eKLR, courts have discretion to impose a sentence other than death, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. 17. The court has considered the aggravating circumstances established during the trial as follows; i. The deceased was killed in his own bedroom, a place where any person ought to feel safe and secure. This constitutes a grave violation of the sanctity of the home and amounts to a breach of trust. ii. After killing the deceased, the Accused Persons disposed of his body and maintained a false narrative that he had travelled to Nakuru in search of employment. This conduct demonstrates a calculated effort to obstruct justice and shows a lack of remorse at the time of the offence. iii. The court has noted that the Accused Persons have maintained their innocence throughout, even after conviction. While every accused person has the right to plead not guilty, genuine remorse requires acceptance of responsibility. The court finds that the Accused Persons are not genuinely remorseful for the loss of life occasioned by their actions. 18. I have considered the mitigation by the Learned Defence Counsel and the Pre-sentence Reports filed on 27th April 2026 have also been considered. 19. The Probation Officer’s assessment of the Accused Persons’ social circumstances, family responsibilities, and community views have been duly taken into account. 20. The Learned Prosecution Counsel urged this court to impose the maximum sentence for murder, arguing that the Accused Persons took away a human life without justification and that the factors raised in mitigation ought to have been considered before the commission of the offence. 21. In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic (2017) eKLR, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory death sentence for murder is unconstitutional, and courts have discretion to impose a sentence commensurate with the circumstances. 22. The objectives of sentencing include: retribution (that the offender deserves punishment proportionate to the offence); deterrence (discouraging the offender and others from similar conduct); https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5893/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 3

rehabilitation (reforming the offender); restorative justice (addressing the harm caused to victims and the community); and incapacitation (protecting society where necessary). 23. This court finds that the murder in this case was not committed in the heat of passion or under provocation. 24. It involved planning, execution, and subsequent concealment. The aggravating factors significantly outweigh the mitigating factors, particularly because the deceased was killed in his own bedroom and the body was disposed of to conceal the crime. 25. The Accused Persons have not shown genuine remorse. In summary, this court has balanced the sanctity of human life, the gruesome manner of the killing and concealment, against the Accused Persons’ status as first offenders and their family responsibilities 26. Accordingly, this court sentences each Accused Person as follows: 27. 1st Accused, Violet Naharui Rayani: She is sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment. 28. 2nd Accused, Hemed Rashid Abed alias Kichapo: He is sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment. 29. The sentence shall take effect from the date of conviction, being the date this judgment is delivered, but the period spent in pre-trial custody shall be taken into account as provided under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya. 30. The court directs that the trial court’s record be reviewed to ascertain the period the Accused Persons were in custody before conviction, and that period be deducted from the thirty-year sentence. 31. The Accused Persons are informed of their right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence within fourteen (14) days of this ruling. 32. Orders to issue accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 IN OPEN COURT AT VOI HIGH COURT. ASENATH ONGERI JUDGE In the presence of:Prosecutor: Miss Kanyuira Court Assistant: Millicent Mr. Motuka for both Accused Persons The Accused Persons https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5893/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 3