Republic v Samwel Muriungi Kinyua [2021] KEHC 585 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT MERU

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO 53 OF  2008

REPUBLIC………………………………………………………………PROSECUTION

VERSUS

SAMWEL MURIUNGI KINYUA…………………………….……………..ACCUSED

SENTENCE

1. The accused who was convicted for the murder Contrary to Section  203 as read with 204of the Penal Code  comes up for re-sentencing following  a successful appeal on his sentence to the Court  of Appeal which by its judgment  of 11/7/2019 which dismissed  the appeal from conviction  directed that “ his matter be remitted to the High Court at Meru for purposes of hearing the appellant’s  mitigation before  resentencing,” in accordance with the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Anor v. R [2017] eKLR.

2. In urging the accused’s mitigation counsel for the accused, Mr. K. Mugambi, pointed out that the accused had been in custody since 2008 and that he had been rehabilitated and learnt some trade while at the prison and was ready to join other citizens in building the nation, and that he was remorseful and pleaded for leniency.

3. Ms. Nandwa, Prosecution Counsel for the DPP urged that there was no report or evidence of accused’s conduct while in prison and it could not be said that he had been rehabilitated or that he had gained  of  useful trade  or skill which could help him while out of prison. The DPP also pointed out that the accused had, as found by the trial court, brutally murdered his son by brutal strangulation, and urged a sentence of life imprisonment.

4. Counsel for accused asked the court to take judicial notice of the courses offered at the prison and find that accused had undertaken some courses during his long stay in prison.

5. The court as considered the nature of the offence herein, that the accused is convicted of killing   his own 2 ½ year old son by strangulation. The court also notes this long custody since 28. 8.2008, some 13 years during which the court is willing to accept he must have undertaken some form of correction including instruction in regular prison courses. In order to take into account the period of Pre-trial detention as required by such Section 333 (2)of the Criminal Procedure Code but being cognizant of the monstrosity of the crime of killing a child and need for deterrence, the court finds a sentence of imprisonment for a period of Fifty (50) years to be fitting and proper in the circumstances of this case. The sentence shall commence on 28/8/2008, the date when the accused was remanded in custody awaiting his trial.

Orders accordingly

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DECEMBER, 2021

EDWARD MURIITHI

JUDGE