'
1. The offender herein was initially charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the penal code. He later entered into a plea bargain agreement with prosecution and the charges were reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with 205 of the penal code. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and he was accordingly convicted.
2. This case is now coming up for sentencing. The minor was aged about 17 years old at the material time and the victim was his mother . He is a first offender . The pre-sentence report indicates that the4 community at home its not ready to receive him and so his security may not be guaranteed . I
3. n the Indian case of Alister Anthony Pereira vs State of Maharashtra at paragraphs 70-71 had this to say on sentencing:-
“70. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no strait jacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.
71. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence
As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.”
4. In the case of JKK vs Republic (2013) eKLR. observed that;“When dealing with an offender who has attained the age of 18, the court can sentence him in any other lawful manner except a death sentence or life imprisonment.’’
5. I have taken into i account mitigation , the fact that the offender was 17 years old at the material time and he is now 18 years old ,the nature of the offence , it’s circumstances , the presentence report , the fact that he saved judicial time by entering into a plea bargain agreement , the Muruateru case , Alister Anthony Pereira vs State of Maharashtra and the JKK cases (supra) . I find that though the offender was a minor at the material time , he killed the mother in a gruesome manner and the pre-sentence report is not favourable to him as the community is still not ready to receive him back and so his security is not guaranteed at home. A custodial sentence is thus necessary for purposes of correction, deterrence and retribution . I proceed to sentence the offender to five (5) years imprisonment . The sentence to be computed from 25.1.24 when he was first remanded in custody . 14 days Right of Appeal .
Delivered virtually in the presence of the offender, Mr Koima for prosecution. Mr Magara for the offender and CA KIpchirchir
'
1. The offender herein was initially charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the penal code. He later entered into a plea bargain agreement with prosecution and the charges were reduced to manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with 205 of the penal code. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and he was accordingly convicted.
2. This case is now coming up for sentencing. The minor was aged about 17 years old at the material time and the victim was his mother . He is a first offender . The pre-sentence report indicates that the4 community at home its not ready to receive him and so his security may not be guaranteed . I
3. n the Indian case of Alister Anthony Pereira vs State of Maharashtra at paragraphs 70-71 had this to say on sentencing:-
“70. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no strait jacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.
71. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence
As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.”
4. In the case of JKK vs Republic (2013) eKLR. observed that;“When dealing with an offender who has attained the age of 18, the court can sentence him in any other lawful manner except a death sentence or life imprisonment.’’
5. I have taken into i account mitigation , the fact that the offender was 17 years old at the material time and he is now 18 years old ,the nature of the offence , it’s circumstances , the presentence report , the fact that he saved judicial time by entering into a plea bargain agreement , the Muruateru case , Alister Anthony Pereira vs State of Maharashtra and the JKK cases (supra) . I find that though the offender was a minor at the material time , he killed the mother in a gruesome manner and the pre-sentence report is not favourable to him as the community is still not ready to receive him back and so his security is not guaranteed at home. A custodial sentence is thus necessary for purposes of correction, deterrence and retribution . I proceed to sentence the offender to five (5) years imprisonment . The sentence to be computed from 25.1.24 when he was first remanded in custody . 14 days Right of Appeal .
Delivered virtually in the presence of the offender, Mr Koima for prosecution. Mr Magara for the offender and CA KIpchirchir
'