1. Daniel Muriuki Waiganjo, the accused, was indicted for murder, the allegations being that he murdered Jedidah Wanjiru Wahome (Deceased) on 25th February, 2020 at Rurere Village, Mutitu Sub-Location, Nyahururu Sub-County, within Laikipia County.
2. This is a case where the deceased was found dead inside her house. Entry of the house by the intruder was enabled by some wooden planks that were used to construct it being removed. Inside the house was a panga with blood stains which was suspected to be the murder weapon since the deceased had sustained visible deep cut wounds on the head.
3. The postmortem was conducted by PW5 Dr. Boniface Miring’u who concluded that the cause of death was exsanguination following a deep cut wound to the mandibular and temporal region (right side).
4. The deceased possessed a cellphone make Techno 312 IMEI No. 354760090952120 that had been gifted to her by PW7 John Ogutu her son-in-law who purchased it at Kshs.1,550/- and was issued with a cash sale receipt No. 152 from Frank Electronics Mpesa and Equity Agent which was missing.
5. Investigations conducted led the investigator to PW3 Jackline Natir who operated a club. She identified the accused as the person who partook alcohol at her club but could not settle the bill therefore offered a Techno cellphone as security. She therefore kept possession of the cellphone pending settlement of the debt owed. Two weeks later the accused had not turned up therefore her son who had a sim card registered under PW4 Isaac Kipsogei put the cellphone into use. PW3 identified the accused who was arrested.
6. 0n 15th April, 2020, PW9 No. 64711 Corporal Fernandez Andove submitted items for examination to the government chemist for analysis which included blood sample of the accused and deceased, and the panga. PW6 Margaret Wahu Maina, a government analyst analyzed the items and reached a finding that the panga was moderately stained with blood of human origin which matched the DNA profile generated from the blood sample obtained from Daniel Muruiki Waiganjo, the accused.
7. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the consideration is whether evidence adduced supports the charge requiring the accused to explain what transpired. This can only be the case if a prima facie case has been established.
The Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition defines a prima facie case as:
“(1) The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption (2) A party’s production of enough evidence to allow a fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favour.”
8. In RamaNlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 the Court stated thus;
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is 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.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends 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……. It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
9. From evidence adduced, it is apparent that the evidence put forth is sufficient for one to make an inference of fact that at this stage, the case may be ruled in favour of the State. Therefore, I find and hold that a prima facie case as defined in the Bhatt case (supra) has been established requiring the accused person to defend himself. This follows Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10. It is so ordered.
2. This is a case where the deceased was found dead inside her house. Entry of the house by the intruder was enabled by some wooden planks that were used to construct it being removed. Inside the house was a panga with blood stains which was suspected to be the murder weapon since the deceased had sustained visible deep cut wounds on the head.
3. The postmortem was conducted by PW5 Dr. Boniface Miring’u who concluded that the cause of death was exsanguination following a deep cut wound to the mandibular and temporal region (right side).
4. The deceased possessed a cellphone make Techno 312 IMEI No. 354760090952120 that had been gifted to her by PW7 John Ogutu her son-in-law who purchased it at Kshs.1,550/- and was issued with a cash sale receipt No. 152 from Frank Electronics Mpesa and Equity Agent which was missing.
5. Investigations conducted led the investigator to PW3 Jackline Natir who operated a club. She identified the accused as the person who partook alcohol at her club but could not settle the bill therefore offered a Techno cellphone as security. She therefore kept possession of the cellphone pending settlement of the debt owed. Two weeks later the accused had not turned up therefore her son who had a sim card registered under PW4 Isaac Kipsogei put the cellphone into use. PW3 identified the accused who was arrested.
6. 0n 15th April, 2020, PW9 No. 64711 Corporal Fernandez Andove submitted items for examination to the government chemist for analysis which included blood sample of the accused and deceased, and the panga. PW6 Margaret Wahu Maina, a government analyst analyzed the items and reached a finding that the panga was moderately stained with blood of human origin which matched the DNA profile generated from the blood sample obtained from Daniel Muruiki Waiganjo, the accused.
7. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the consideration is whether evidence adduced supports the charge requiring the accused to explain what transpired. This can only be the case if a prima facie case has been established.
The Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition defines a prima facie case as:
“(1) The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption (2) A party’s production of enough evidence to allow a fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favour.”
8. In RamaNlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic [1957] EA 332 the Court stated thus;
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is 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.” This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends 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……. It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a “prima facie case”, but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
9. From evidence adduced, it is apparent that the evidence put forth is sufficient for one to make an inference of fact that at this stage, the case may be ruled in favour of the State. Therefore, I find and hold that a prima facie case as defined in the Bhatt case (supra) has been established requiring the accused person to defend himself. This follows Section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10. It is so ordered.