Republic v Chemutai [2025] KEHC 241 (KLR)

Republic v Chemutai (Criminal Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 241 (KLR) (23 January 2025) (Sentence)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 241 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nakuru

Criminal Case E015 of 2024

JM Nang'ea, J

January 23, 2025

Between

Republic

Prosecution

and

Sharon Chemutai

Accused

Sentence

1. The accused herein pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of Manslaughter Contrary to Section 205 of the Penal Code after initially being charged with Murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the same Code. This was the culmination of plea bargain between the Prosecution and the accused pursuant to the Section 137A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. In her mitigation submissions the defence Counsel (Mr Kirwa) told the court that the convict is 19 years old or thereabouts and the deceased was her child. She is said to have been forced into an early marriage at the age of 17. When her husband deserted her and she faced financial challenges she returned to her parents home. She was, however, rejected which rejection drove her to kill her child. Counsel urges the court to consider these circumstances and mete out a non-custodial sentence, a two-year non-custodial sentence being suggested.

3. The Prosecution Counsel (Ms Sang) replies that although the offender has no previous criminal records and decided to enter into the Plea Agreement, she urges the court to take into account that a young life was lost through poisoning. According to Counsel, a custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of the case for deterrence.

4. I have considered the submissions against the applicable principles of sentencing and the operational Judiciary Sentencing Guidelines. It is noted that the offender is youthful and has no criminal antecedents. It is a mitigating factor that she entered into the Plea Agreement and thus helped reduce costs which is in keeping with public policy.

5. The Probation Officer’s pre-sentence report dated 17/12/2024 corroborates the Defence Counsel’s observations about the offender. It is further noted that she is remorseful. She and her relatives face financial challenges and struggle to make ends meet. A recommendation is made in light of the foregoing that the convict be placed on three (3) years probation for counselling.

6. Having considered the relevant factors, I concur with the prosecution Counsel that a custodial sentence is imperative to better deter the offender. While I appreciate the stated mitigating circumstances, the accused perpetrated a vile act against an innocent young soul who depended on her for protection. That she was frustrated by her social circumstances is not an acceptable excuse.

7. Doing the best I can, I sentence the offender to ten (10) years imprisonment to commence from the date of her arrest on 17/5/2024 as per the charge sheet and information presented before the court.

J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.RULING DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF:The Prosecution Counsel, Ms SangThe Defence Counsel, Mr Kirwa AdvocateThe accused personThe Court Assistant, Mr. OmbakaJ. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.