SIMON NDIRANGU MAINA & MICHAEL KIARIE GITAU v REPUBLIC [2011] KEHC 2644 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THEHIGH COURT   OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 78 & 80 BOTH  OF 2010

(Fromoriginal conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 2544 of 2009 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nakuru- D. K. MIKOYAN SRM )

SIMON NDIRANGU MAINA……….............………1ST APPELLANT

MICHAEL KIARIE GITAU.......................................2ND APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC .................................................................RESPONDENT

J U D G E M E N T

Simon Ndirangu Maina and Michael Kiarie Gitau were convicted  by  the Nakuru CMC No 2544/09 for two offences of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code ( Cap 63 Laws of Kenya) and were sentenced to death . The 1st appellant was also convicted on count IV of  being in possessionof   public   stores contrary to   section 324  of the Penal Code. Being dissatisfied  with the convictions  and sentence, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeals 78 and 80 of 2010 which were consolidated at the hearing and proceeded as Criminal Appeals 78 of 2010.  The 1st   accused is the 1st Appellant   whereas the 2nd accused is the 2nd   appellant.

The grounds of appeal used by theappellants are summarized as follows :-

1. That the trial Magistrate erred in relying onevidence of identification by Pw1 and PW2which was unsupported.

2. That  the trial Court erred in relying onevidence in which the witnesses did not givea description   of the appellants in making theinitial report.

3. That the trial Court   erred by  shifting theburden of proof to the defence.

4. The Court erred in admitting   the evidenceof Pw6 and 7.

5. The court erred in failing to consider thedefences of the appellant.

6. That the trial court erred  by  relying onevidence of a flawed identification parade.

7. That the trial court erred in convicting   theappellants  twice contrary to section 14 (3)(c) of CPC.

Mr Omutalema, thePrincipal State Counsel, opposed the Appeals. He submitted that the two complainants, Pw1 and Pw2 were able to identify the  appellants  at the scene and on an  identification parade held two days later. The Inspectors   who conducted the parade produced   the said reports. He also submitted that the complainants  had ample time with the appellants at close range and also saw the appellants   with the use of headlights from a motor vehicle . On sentence counsel    urged   the Court to exercise its discretion   in light of the Court of   Appeal’s decision - GODFREY NGETHE VRS REPUBLIC CRCA 17/2008.

On 31/11/09 at about 11. 00pm,the two complainants  Peter Mathenge Gatere (PW1)  and JohnMaina Gatere ( PW2) were waiting for Pw1’s  gate to be opened . This was at   Naka Estate in Nakuru. They were   in motor vehicle KAX 839S Nissan   which was driven   by Pw2. They were approached by three men, armed with a gun ,a panga and wore police uniforms . They took   two Nokia   phones and Ksh 30,000/= from Pw1 and   drove   off with them till Kivumbini  area. The robbers  called another vehicle which  took them and they let the complaints   to go. The complainants went back home at   2. 00 am and at 3. 00 am they were informed   by the Police about arrests. At   the Police Station,   they  found   two blue shirts with badges  ( police uniform) a gun  and pangas. Both complainants  identified the   1st appellant on an identification   parade while the 2nd   complainant   identified the 2nd appellant on another parade. They   recalled that the 1st appellant as having sported a moustache. Pw2   also recalled   seeing   the robbers  wearing blue shirts, one had a gun. He  lost Ksh5,800/=  a Nokia 1200, a pair of Safari boots and car tool box , ATM  card for Equity Bank .

Pw3APC   Lemutho  and   Pw6 APC Franklin   Yiengo   were at section 58 on 1/5/2009, at   midnight when they spotted three people , ordered them to stop but one run away while the two appellants were arrested. The 1st appellant   had a polythene   bag in which they found police   uniforms , the 2nd   appellant had a panga up   his sleeve and a home made gun which he tried to drop but was seen and it was  picked. Pw4   IP John Owouth   and Pw5   IP Remson   Ngambo   conducted   identification   parades and Pw2   identified both appellants while   Pw1 only identified  the 1st   appellant .

Bothappellants   denied committing   the offences. The   first appellant   in his unsworn defence said that he is a changaa dealer   and he was escorting a customer and   when on his way back home, he met   police officers and    one person . He knew   them. He   denied having anything in a polythene bag and  he was arrested for no reason. The 2nd   appellant   made a sworn defence where he claimed to be at a Bible   school. He   was from Nyeri and alighted   at Kunste   Hotel   at about   1. 00 P.M   He met policemen who  arrested him and took him to Central    Police Station where his personal effects were taken.

This beingthe first appeal, this Court is required to evaluate and  analyse the evidence afresh and make its own findings. We have reviewed the evidence of   IP John Owuoth (Pw4) and IP Renson Ngambo (Pw5) who conducted the identification parades and we  find that   they did not comply with Force  Standing Orders regarding  conduct of  parades. At section 6(IV) (K ) of the Standing Orders it  is required that , “when   explaining the  procedure  to a witness, the officer conducting  the parade will tell  him that he will see a group of people which may or may not   contain the person  responsible . No witness should be told to pick out somebody  or be influenced  in any way whatsoever”

Pw4 and 5 never warned the witnesses of this very crucialrequirement. It seems that the witnesses were expected   to find the robbers on the parades . We find the conduct of the parades by Pw4 and 5 to have been irregular and that evidence will be disregarded. All we have left is dock identification .

The robbery was committed about 11. 00pm and havingdisregarded the evidence of the identification parades all we have left is dock identification. In our view the circumstances under  which the complainants  were robbed were difficult for anybody to identify the robbers .

Pw1 recalled that the robbers jumped from the flowers outside his gate , they were sandwiched  between the robbers, then  hewas pushed to   the rear. He was then ordered to lie face down. However, he claimed to have seen the robbers using the lights from vehicles that were passing by. How could he see them when he was lying facing down ? Pw1 also claimed to have seen the 1st appellant  using headlights from their vehicle but he did not explain how.  Pw1 did not  explain  clearly how he managed to see that the 1st appellant had a moustache, although in court, he was   clean  shaven . In court   Pw1 also claimed to have recognized the 1st  appellant’s voice but   he did not  tell the court what was unique about that voice, that enabled   him recognize it.

Pw2 recalled that when the robbers attacked  them, entered into their car, and they were made to lie down facing down . He also said that the robbers did not give him a chance to see them and there were no lights in the vehicle. He admitted to having only raisedhis head after the robbers had left  to go to the car   they  had called for and later he saw them by use of headlights from their vehicle. The court was not told   how far the robbers were from the   complainants vehicle, whether Pw2 saw them   from the rear or  the front. Pw2 also said  he recognized the   1st appellants voice but he did   not   point to any   unique feature in the 1st appellants voice that made him know it. We are of the view   that the complainants were not   in a position   to positively   identify the robbers under the circumstances analyzed above.

The only evidence that seems to connect  theappellants   with the offence is that they were arrested on the same night of the robbery  and were in possession of police uniform, (shirts) which Pw1and 2 said   the robbers   wore.

Pw3  and 6 stopped and arrested the appellants between Free Area and Kunste, near Naka Estate. According to Pw1 and  2the appellants   parted ways with them at   Kivumbini . It was   not disclosed whether   Kivumbini is near Naka  Estate. Besides, the robbers were driven off   in another vehicle and the question is whether they   are the same people who were found near Free Area by the police. In our considered view,   though the appellants were arrested while in possession of  police uniforms, (shirts) gun and panga, which  raises suspicion that   they could have been involved  in committing of some  offence, it can not be said  with certainty   that they are the same people who robbed Pw1 and 2.

All the above  factors considered , we find that the evidence on identification of the appellants was wanting and weak. There are glaring doubts  in the prosecutioncase as to whether the appellants were properly identified as the robbers and those doubts should  have been resolved   in favour   of the Appellants . Mere suspicion cannot be a basis for conviction for such a serious an offence.

In  its judgement,the trial Court observed   that the “defence raised did not  rebut  the incriminating evidence against each accused person” In   criminal cases the burden always lies with the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not  for the appellants to rebut   the prosecution  case. The appellants were only expected   to give a reasonable explanation in order to shake   or raise doubt in the prosecution case. The trial Court  erred in shifting the burden of   proof on the appellants by expecting them to rebut the prosecution case. We find that the offence of   robbery   with violence was not   proved beyond any reasonable doubt   and the conviction  on counts   2 and 3 was unsafe and is   hereby   quashed and  sentence  set aside.

We have consideredthe defences raised by the appellants . They are mere denials in light of the evidence of Pw3 and 6 regarding the   appellants’ arrest. On the evidence of Pw3 and 6, we find that the appellants were arrested at  midnight,  armed with offensive weapons i.e, an immitation of a firearm, a panga and Police   uniform. Another person   who was with them ran on being   stopped. We are satisfied that the appellants were at that place with an ill intention, that is to commit an offence. By virture of section 179 (1) of the CPC, We find   the appellants guilty   of the offence of   preparation to commit   a felony   contrary to section 308(1)   of the Penal Code.

As regards count 4, Pw3 and 6 arrested the 1st  appellant while carrying a polythene bag with  police uniform inside. Bothwitnesses are   police officers. The investigation officer also confirmed   that the shirts are police uniform. There was no explanation offered by the 1st appellant for possession of police uniform and yet he is not a police officer. We find that the conviction for that offence is sound and we find no reason to disturb that it. Having found as above, we hereby   sentence the Appellants as follows;

Bothappellants are convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for the offence of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308 (1) of the   Penal Code.

The 1st appellant is also sentencedto serve 6 months imprisonment  on count 4 and the sentences will run concurrently . The sentences will take effect from   the date of conviction on 9/8/2010.

Orders accordingly .

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS  20TH DAY OF MAY 2011

R.P.V WENDOH

JUDGE

M J ANYARA EMUKULE

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Omwega for state

Appellants in person

Court Clerk : Kennedy Ogumo