Kegocha v Republic [2022] KEHC 13910 (KLR)

Kegocha v Republic (Criminal Appeal E014 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 13910 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13910 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Migori

Criminal Appeal E014 of 2022

RPV Wendoh, J

October 19, 2022

Between

Michael Sagonyi Kegocha

Appellant

and

Republic

Respondent

Judgment

1. Michael Sagonyi Kegocha, the appellant, pleaded guilty and was convicted by the Principal Magistrate Kehancha PM’s courts on December 18, 2018 for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of thePenal Code.

2. The particulars of the charge were that on 4/12/2018 at Komasincha village in Kuria West, sub county, killed Jackson Igenga Ngocho. He was sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.

3. The appellant is dissatisfied with the sentence and preferred is appeal filed in court on 3/10/2022 based on the following grounds; that the sentence is manifestly harsh and excessive in the circumstances; that he is a married man, the sole breadwinner of the family; that is remorseful and has reformed after undergoing some courses in prison since 2018, i.e carpentry, bible study. He prays for reduction of the sentence or released be on probation.

4. Mr. Omooria, the then prosecution counsel, submitted that sentencing is an exercise of the court’s discretion which must be exercised judiciously, guided by sound legal principles; that this court can only interfere with the sentence if is demonstrated that the sentence is illegal or is so harsh and excessive as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or that the exercise of discretion was capricious. Counsel relied on the case of Shadrack Kipchoge Kogo vs. Republic; Ogolla s/o Owuor vs. Republic (1954) EACA 270 and Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic (2012) eKLR. He also relied on the sentencing policy guidelines. He urged that the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionally, deterrence and rehabilitation, and the mitigating or aggravating factors. Counsel urged that under section 205, upon conviction, one is liable to life imprisonment and by meting a sentence of ten (10) years, the court was very lenient to the appellant having bone in mind that the appellant and deceased were friends, he was a first offender and he pleaded guilty to the charge. Counsel urged the court not to interfere with the sentence.

5. I have perused the record of appeal. The grounds of appeal are basically mitigation. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and did not waste the courts time. He was treated as a first offender. He explained to the court that the deceased had been his friend. He now prays for leniency because he is a family man and the sole bread winner, that he has reformed through programs offered in prison. The court takes note of the fact that the offence with which the accused was charged is very serious and upon conviction one is liable to life imprisonment. Though accused pleaded guilty, the circumstances of the offence are such that the two had disagreed and accused was disarmed, yet he went further to get a knife and stick , chased the deceased till he caught up with him and injured him. Despite the fact that the deceased was subdued when he fell, the appellant stabbed him on a major blood vessel which led to excessive bleeding and hence death. The circumstances were aggravating and a life was unnecessarily lost.

6. In my view, the trial court was very lenient in sentencing the appellant to ten (10) years imprisonment. I find no good cause to interfere. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT MIGORI THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022R. WENDOHJUDGEJudgment delivered in the presence ofMr. Mulama, for the State.Appellant present in person.