Republic v Mutiria [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR)

Republic v Mutiria (Criminal Case 19 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR) (5 October 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23065 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Chuka

Criminal Case 19 of 2019

LW Gitari, J

October 5, 2023

Between

Republic

Prosecutor

and

Erick Mutugi Mutiria

Accused

Ruling

1. The accused person herein was charged with the offence murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Law of Kenya). As per the amended Information dated November 18, 2020, it is alleged that on October 15, 2019 at Kathathani Trading Centre, Gitareni Location, Kiamucii Sub-Location within Tharaka-Nithi County the accused person unlawfully murdered one Silas Mwiti Stephen.

2. The prosecution called a total of eight (8) witnesses in support of its case against the accused herein before closing their case on July 17, 2023. In summary, it was the prosecution’s case that on the material day, the deceased was taking alcohol when the accused started abusing him. After a brief exchange, the accused slapped the deceased. The two were then pushed out of the bar. The accused went to an unknown destination while the deceased continued drinking. It is alleged that the accused returned with a knife concealed in his clothes and stabbed the deceased on the chest. The deceased fell down and started pleading for help as he was bleeding profusely. The deceased was rushed to Kathathani Medical Clinic but he passed on before receiving treatment. According to PW3, the doctor who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased, the cause of his death was severe blood loss due to penetrating stab wound.

3. Under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya) this Court has a duty, upon close of the prosecution’s case, to make a ruling on whether the accused person has a case to answer or not. In other words, the question for this court to determine at this stage is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused persons sufficient enough to warrant this court to put them on their defence pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The leading authority on what constitutes a prima facie case is the case of Ramanlal T Bhatt -v- Republic [1957] EA 332 where the court stated as follows:“(i)The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a prima facie case is not made out if at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.(ii)The question whether there is a case to answer cannot depend only on whether there is 'some' evidence irrespective of its credibility or weight sufficient to put the accused on his defence. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough; nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence.”

5. In this case, I have considered the evidence adduced so far from the prosecution’s side. In my view, the accused person has a case to answer. At this stage, the Court is not to minutely examine the said evidence and make a conclusive determination as to whether the accused stands convicted or not. Accordingly, I opine that based on the evidence as presented by the prosecution.I find that it is sufficient to warrant the accused to be placed on his defence as charged.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 5THDAY OF OCTOBER 2023. L.W. GITARIJUDGE