Barson Stephen Meshack v Republic [2014] KECA 22 (KLR)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AT MOMBASA

(CORAM:  OKWENGU. MAKHANDIA & SICHALE,  JJ.A.)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2012

BETWEEN

BARSON STEPHEN MESHACK....................  APPELLANT

AND

REPUBLIC………..........................…………RESPONDENT

(An appeal  from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at

Mombasa (Odero & Nzioka, JJ.) dated 6th September, 2012

in

H.C.Cr.A.No. 286 of 2010)

**********************

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

On   the    night    of 10th  March,  2009    at   Likizo   Cottages  in Msambweni District of the  then  Coast  Province  an incident of robbery with  violence occurred.   Apparently, PW1  Mbithi  Joel Muasya,  who was  the  driver  cum  manager and  the  complainant in respect of count four  in  the  charge-sheet had  on  10th March,  2009, at  about 7 p.m., taken the  owner of Likizo Cottages, Dr Kurt Lux and  two of his friends, Stein Mazel  Martin  and  Baver  Wolfgang,  to have  dinner at Ushago Restaurant, in Diani,  Msambweni District.  Kurt,  Wolfgang and  Martin were the complainants in counts one, two and  three respectively in the charge-sheet.  At about 10 p.m.  as  they  returned to the  cottages and were  waiting  for  the  gate  to be opened by one  of the  watchmen, Ali Alfan  PW2, and  unknown to  them, there were  thugs lurking in  the neighbourhood ready to  pounce on  them. As they drove in the four thugs forced  their  way into  the compound past PW2.  Sensing that the thugs meant no good since they were armed with what appeared to be a pistol, PW2 took to his heels toward the alarm and  switched it on. He thereafter proceeded to the parking bay where he found the thugs molesting, harassing and  robbing the  occupants of the  motor  vehicle aforesaid.  Indeed they had  dragged them out  of the  motor  vehicle.   In the   process they   stole   various items   that   included   cash,   mobile phones, a bag, bracelets, and driving licence.   As all these was  going on,  there was  another security guard, Stephen Muria Mulwa  PW3, who had  taken cover and  could  not  be seen  by the  thugs. After seeing the  thugs rob  the  occupants of the  vehicle,  he aimed  an  arrow at  one of them  but  missed.  However, the  arrow hit  a tree.   This  startled the thugs who  started running away towards the  gate  with  the  guards in hot  pursuit.  As they  approached the  gate,  one  of them  fell down.  He was  immediately apprehended  by the  security guards. However  the other three managed to make  good  their  escape. Responding to the alarm, group 4 security guards soon  arrived and  the  thug who  had been arrested was handed over to them. They in turn handed him over to police officers led by Sgt.  Samuel Sokong (PW4) who arrived at the scene having been called  thereat by  PW1. In  the  meantime on  14th March,  2009,  PW1 was  examined by Samuel Githui, a clinical officer based at  Msambweni District hospital.  His examination revealed that PW1  had  indeed been  injured during the  robbery, the  injuries being assessed as  harm and  the  weapon used as blunt.  The  thug who fell down  and  was  subsequently arrested and  handed over  to  the  police was  the  appellant. He was  taken to  the  Diani  Police  Station where upon conclusion of the investigations he was charged with four counts of robbery with  violence  contrary to section 296(2) of the  Penal  Code, the   other  three  victims of  the  robbery  being   the   complainants  in respect of counts one,  two and  three.  In all the  counts, it was alleged that  on 10th  March,  2009,  at   Likizo  Cottages  in   Diani Beach   in Msambweni District within  the  Coast   Province, the  appellant  jointly with  others not  before  court while  armed with  dangerous weapons namely toy pistols and  rungus robbed respective victims  of the  items set   out   in  the   respective counts  and   at or  immediately  before  or immediately after  the  time  of such robbery threatened to  use  actual violence on those victims.

The appellant duly entered a not guilty plea and his trial soon thereafter ensued.  Put on his defence, the  appellant elected to give a sworn  statement of defence  and  called  a witness.  He denied any involvement in the robberies.  His story was that on 10th March, 2009, he worked as an  animator at  Ocean Village Hotel until about 5 p.m., then proceeded to  partake of alcohol   at  Vine  Pane   bar   until about midnight when  he  left for home  whilst  tipsy.    Along the  way  he  was accosted  by  a  man   armed  with   a pistol   who   pushed  him   into   a compound and   he  fell down  but   he  continued  kicking him.    A few minutes later he heard people running outside. He rose  and as he was sprucing  himself  up,   two   men   with   arrows  confronted  him   and threatened to kill him.   When  he explained to them  that he  had  been hijacked, the  duo  pressed Group 4  Security company alarm whose guards came and  he was driven  away and  handed over to Diani  Police station.  He was later charged with offences he knew nothing about.

His witness, John Odongo Haggai (DW1) only testified to the fact that he knew the appellant and  that on  10th March,  2009  he had  been with  him  until when  he left work  at about 4 p.m.  for a drink.

The  trial   court  having carefully considered and evaluated the evidence led by the prosecution as well as that of the defence  acquitted the appellant in respect of counts one, two and three pursuant to section 215 of the  Criminal Procedure Code  on  account of the  fact that the  prosecution did  not  call  the  complainants or  any  of them  to testify. However, in respect of count four,  the  appellant was  found guilty  and consequently sentenced to death.

Aggrieved by the  conviction and  sentence, the  appellant  lodged an  appeal to  the  High  Court.  The  appeal was  heard by  Odero  and Nzioka, JJ.  In ajudgment delivered on 7th  September, 2012, the  two Judges dismissed the  appeal in its entirety.

Undettered, the  appellant has  now come  to this  Court by way of a second and   perhaps last   appeal.   In  his  attempt to  impugn the judgment of the  High Court, the appellant has advanced four grounds; that he  was  a victim  of circumstances; that he  was  also  a  victim  of mistaken identity; that the  prosecution case  was  not  proved  beyond reasonable doubt; and  failure by the judges to consider adequately his defence.

At the  hearing of this  appeal before  us on  13th May,  2014, Mr James Ogero Ogeto,  learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that the  appellant was only identified by the clothes he wore on the material day,  a  T-shirt. However   the   physique of the   appellant was   not described nor was the T-shirt tendered in evidence. Since this was the only item used to identify the appellant, in its  absence, both  courts below  ought to  have  doubted the  alleged  identification and  resolved the  doubts in favour  of the  appellant.

In  response, Mr Wohoro,  learned Senior  Assistant  Director of Public  Prosecution submitted that the  appellant was  arrested at the scene.  He was  identified by  PW1,   PW2,  and  PW3. That there was enough light  at  the  scene and  visibility  was therefore a non-issue.  In the  premises the  appellant's conviction and  sentence was  safe.

We are  keenly  aware that this  is  a second appeal and  that our jurisdiction is delimited and  ring  fenced  by the  provisions of section 361 of the  Criminal Procedure Code. Our  jurisdiction is  limited   to considering matters  of law  only.    We  are  barred from   considering matters of fact,  the  assumption being  that such matters of fact would have  been  adequately evaluated and  considered by the  courts  below and  would  deserve no further input by this  Court.

The only issue of law raised in the grounds of appeal and  the oral submissions made by counsel for the  appellant appears to be identification of the appellant. However to us this  is a non-issue. This is  because the  appellant was  arrested at the  scene of crime. The appellant concedes that much.  However  his  defence is that he was a victim of circumstances. That as he was on his way home  after  a long session of drinking and  being  tipsy  he  was  suddenly confronted by a man  armed with  a pistol  who pushed him  aside and  pocked him  with the  pistol.   He then pushed him into a compound and  forced  him  to lie down on his stomach. After about 5 minutes, he heard people  running outside.  When  he  stood  up,  he was  arrested by security guards and later handed to  the  police  who  subsequently charged him  with  the offence.   Basically the  appellant was saying that he had  been  hijacked by  the  thugs and   forced  into  a compound in  which   a  robbery was committed.  He had  no hand in the  robbery and  that he was  merely  a victim  of circumstances being at the  wrong  place  at the  wrong  time.

How did the  trial  court handle that defence? It stated:-

''It is  noted  that  the  accused  took  up  this  issue with  the witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3) who all denied  that anyone had been forced to lie at the gate or that there had been a 5th  thief guarding  anyone at the csge (sic).   To me, this  remains a  mere  allegation   of  accused that   cannot   challenge   the evidence of the  prosecution  that  accused   had  ran into  the compound  with  the  other 3 and  participated  in the  robbery only for him to fell (sic) down as he aimed at escaping.   In my (sic) case  if accused   was  drunk  and  on  his  way  home  as alleged,  I do not see  why  the thieves would  bother  kidnap him and keep him under guard at the gate while the intended victims  had  all gone into the compound.  And none of them (sic) witnesses talked of a 5th thief at the gate. This, to me, implies  that  if al (sic) all accused  had  been  hijacked  in that manner,  he  would  have  got the  opportunity  to escape  the moment  the  thieves ran into the  compound. He would not have remained   on the ground. In  any   case,  there  was concrete and  well corroborated evidence that  he had  failed (sic) down   before  being  caught  within  the  compound,   not while lying down as he alleges ... "

How about the High Court? This is how it delivered itself on the issue:-

((In  his  defence the  appellant  denied   that  he  went   to  the cottages  with  any  intention  of  committing  a  robbery.    He claims that the other men kidnapped him as he walked home drunk and forced him to accompany them on their nefarious mission.  Contrary  to  what   the  appellant   alleges   in  his submission we  find that the trial magistrate  did give proper and  adequate  consideration to  the  defence   raised  by  the appellant  ... We too would question why  persons  who  were out  to commit  a  robbery  would  saddle themselves with  a drunk  who  would  only serve to slow them  down  or even  to blow their cover.   What purpose  would  have  been  achieved by kidnapping the  appellant.   This defence is so fanciful as to be totally unbelievable.   The  trial  magistrate   was quite correct in dismissing it ... The facts  show  quite clearly that the   appellant   was   amongst  the  group  of  four  men   who invaded  the compound  and  proceeded  to rough up  and  rob the  occupants.   Whilst his companions managed to escape the appellant's own escape bid was thwarted because he fell down and was thus apprehended by the G4 security."

From  the foregoing, it is quite  clear  that the  two courts below rejected the  appellant's defence and  rightly  so  in  our  view.   It was all about which between the two stories advanced or told by the prosecution and the appellant was credible and   believable by the courts. The  two courts chose to  go  with   the   prosecution  story as  opposed  to  the appellant's.  Given  the  evidence on  record, that was  the  right  choice. With  this  concurrent findings by the  two  courts and  there being  no basis for us to interfere with  those findings, we are  similarly satisfied that the  appellant was  arrested at  the  locus in quo and  was  an  active member of the gang that assaulted and robbed PW1, of his Kshs.3,000/- and a driving licence.

It is on this basis that we find the appeal lacking in merit. Accordingly it is dismissed in its entirety.

Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 26th day of June, 2014.

H.M.OKWENGU

…………………………..

JUDGE OF APPEAL

ASIKE-MAKHANDIA

……………………………

JUDGE OF APPEAL

F. SICHALE

…………………………

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original

DEPUTY REGISTRAR