1. The Accused in this matter is Gedion Mogumbu Mogeni, who stands charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The Republic appears as the prosecutor. The charge alleges that the accused murdered one Lydia Kwamboka on 09th July 2022. The Accused took plea on 28th July 2022 and entered a plea of not guilty.
2. This ruling is made pursuant to section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the Court, at the close of the prosecution’s case, to determine whether there is evidence that the accused committed the offence, and if none exists, to record a finding of not guilty.
3. The governing test is set out in Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR, which describes a prima facie case as evidence establishing a rebuttable presumption of guilt. The authoritative standard remains that in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, where the Court held that a prima facie case is not one that might possibly succeed, but one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing itself to the law and the evidence could convict if the accused offered no explanation.
4. The prosecution called four witnesses. PW1 testified that on 09th July 2022 she was informed that someone was crying inside a neighbour’s house. She entered the house and found the deceased, Lydia, bleeding heavily from the head. The deceased was alone and unable to speak. PW1 did not see how the deceased was injured and did not see the accused at or near the scene.
5. PW2 also responded to screams and accompanied PW1 to the house. She too found the deceased alone and injured. She did not witness any assault, did not see the accused, and found no one else inside or outside the house.
6. PW3, the deceased’s sister, arrived after being informed of the incident and helped take the deceased to hospital. She did not witness the assault and had never seen the accused before his arrest.
7. PW4, the deceased’s mother, similarly arrived after her daughter was already injured and took her to hospital. She did not know who assaulted the deceased and had no prior knowledge of the accused until after the incident.
8. From the evidence on record, none of the prosecution witnesses witnessed the assault or saw either of the Accused persons at or near the scene. No witness placed any of the Accused persons with the deceased on the material day. The consistent evidence was that the deceased was discovered alone in an unoccupied house, already injured, bleeding, and unable to speak.
9. Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce a post-mortem report or any other medical evidence, leaving the cause of death unproved. Further, no forensic, circumstantial, or investigative evidence was adduced to explain how the injuries were sustained or to connect the accused to the alleged unlawful act.
10. The Court is not entitled to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case or to resort to conjecture. Even when the evidence is considered in the light most favourable to the prosecution, it falls far short of the threshold required to sustain a conviction in the absence of a defence. As stated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, insubstantial or minimal evidence cannot found a prima facie case, and the burden of proving the charge rests squarely and continuously on the prosecution.
11. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against Gedion Mogumbu Mogeni, the accused, on the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
12. Pursuant to section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I record a finding of not guilty. The accused is accordingly acquitted and shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
2. This ruling is made pursuant to section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the Court, at the close of the prosecution’s case, to determine whether there is evidence that the accused committed the offence, and if none exists, to record a finding of not guilty.
3. The governing test is set out in Republic v Abdi Ibrahim Owl [2013] eKLR, which describes a prima facie case as evidence establishing a rebuttable presumption of guilt. The authoritative standard remains that in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, where the Court held that a prima facie case is not one that might possibly succeed, but one on which a reasonable tribunal properly directing itself to the law and the evidence could convict if the accused offered no explanation.
4. The prosecution called four witnesses. PW1 testified that on 09th July 2022 she was informed that someone was crying inside a neighbour’s house. She entered the house and found the deceased, Lydia, bleeding heavily from the head. The deceased was alone and unable to speak. PW1 did not see how the deceased was injured and did not see the accused at or near the scene.
5. PW2 also responded to screams and accompanied PW1 to the house. She too found the deceased alone and injured. She did not witness any assault, did not see the accused, and found no one else inside or outside the house.
6. PW3, the deceased’s sister, arrived after being informed of the incident and helped take the deceased to hospital. She did not witness the assault and had never seen the accused before his arrest.
7. PW4, the deceased’s mother, similarly arrived after her daughter was already injured and took her to hospital. She did not know who assaulted the deceased and had no prior knowledge of the accused until after the incident.
8. From the evidence on record, none of the prosecution witnesses witnessed the assault or saw either of the Accused persons at or near the scene. No witness placed any of the Accused persons with the deceased on the material day. The consistent evidence was that the deceased was discovered alone in an unoccupied house, already injured, bleeding, and unable to speak.
9. Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce a post-mortem report or any other medical evidence, leaving the cause of death unproved. Further, no forensic, circumstantial, or investigative evidence was adduced to explain how the injuries were sustained or to connect the accused to the alleged unlawful act.
10. The Court is not entitled to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case or to resort to conjecture. Even when the evidence is considered in the light most favourable to the prosecution, it falls far short of the threshold required to sustain a conviction in the absence of a defence. As stated in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v R, insubstantial or minimal evidence cannot found a prima facie case, and the burden of proving the charge rests squarely and continuously on the prosecution.
11. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against Gedion Mogumbu Mogeni, the accused, on the charge of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
12. Pursuant to section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I record a finding of not guilty. The accused is accordingly acquitted and shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.