Republic v Mwangi [2024] KEHC 12059 (KLR)

Republic v Mwangi (Criminal Case 19 of 2016) [2024] KEHC 12059 (KLR) (9 October 2024) (Sentence)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12059 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Murang'a

Criminal Case 19 of 2016

J Wakiaga, J

October 9, 2024

Between

Republic

Prosecutor

and

Joseph Njogu Mwangi

Accused

Sentence

1. The convict was found and convicted of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal code. The particular of the offence was that on the 1st day of September 2016 at Mukuyu market within Muranga county murdered Edward Murithi Mburia.

2. In mitigation he stated through his Advocate that he was remorseful and 0000that the Court should consider the fact that he was a first offender, with a young family and had been in remand custody from 1st September 2016.

3. The State on the other hand sought for a stiff sentence since a young man lost his life at the hand of the convict.

4. In compliance with the Bond and Bail Policy Guidelines and the Supreme Court directions in the Muruatetu 1, the Court called for pre-sentencing report, where it was stated that the offender dropped out of school after his primary education due to lack of school fee and moved to Nairobi in 2007 up to 2015 when he returned to the village having secured a job at Maguna Supermarket. It was stated that he suffers from epilepsy and had sustained a dislocation of the right shoulder from a fall and without right treatment, it had lost its function.

5. On his attitude towards the offence, it was stated that he did not know the deceased and only heard of him when he was murdered in the apartment where he was living at and therefore denied having committed the offence. He nonetheless sought for leniency and non-custodial sentence so as to rebuilt his life.

6. The deceased was a caretaker at the plot where the convict lived and was married with two children. His wife fell out with her in laws after the death and was struggling with the children alone.

7. The community through the Chief stated that the offender was a peaceful man with no criminal history. It was stated further that he had a supportive family.

8. The objective of sentence are:a.Retribution – to punish the offender in a just manner for his criminal conductb.Deterrence – to deter the offender from committing a similar offencec.Rehabilitation – to enable the offender to reformd.Restorative –to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damagese.Community protection – to protect the community by incapacitating the offenderf.Denunciation – to communicate the community condemnation.

9. In this matter the offender denies the commission of the offence against the overwhelming evidence tendered against him in Court the basis upon which he was convicted thereby portraying a person who is in denial and who is not ready to be rehabilitated and reformed.

10. I have however considered the fact that the same has been in custody since 2016 and therefore might not benefit from the custodial sentence based on his attitude towards the offence. This therefore leaves the Court with the option of rehabilitation out of prison.

11. The sentence that the Court find appropriate in the circumstances of this case of probation terms. I therefore sentence the convict to a probation term of three years during which he will be rehabilitated and re settled in society. In reaching at this sentence I have taken into account the fact that the convict has been in custody since 14th September 2016.

12. The convict has a right of appeal both on conviction and sentence and it is ordered.

SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED AT MURANGA THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024J. WAKIAGAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Mwangi for the StateAccused PresentJackline – Court Assistant