The offender was initially charged with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the penal Code . He entered into a plea bargain agreement and the charges were reduced to manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the penal code .He pleaded guilty to the reduced charge and the case is now for sentencing. The Supreme Court in the Muruatetu case set down the following factors to be considered in sentencing in murder trials;
a) Age of the offender.
b) Being a first offender.
c) Whether the offender pleaded guilty.
d) Character and record of the offender.
e) Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence.
f) Remorsefulness of the offender.
g) The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender.
h) Any other factor that the court considers relevant.
I have considered the nature of the offence ,it’s circumstances , mitigation, the age of the offender and the pre-sentence report filed herein . It has emerged from the presentence report that the offender is a son to deceased and that he is a known epileptic which condition at times destabilizes his mental status and that deceased provoked him by mocking him epileptic and hence he reacted and killed him .The family the community and local administration have no issue with his release a non -custodial sentence saying he has no previous criminal record and he was proved by deceased who used to mock him about his medical condition . I have seen a medical report from Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital dated 21.2.23 filed herein which found him mentally unstable to face trial and another dated 10.5.23 which concluded that he was mentally stable and fit to plead. The medical report dated 28.2.25 by Doctor O. Mariita indicates that he is a known diabetic and epileptic and has been on treatment at KTRH .The the home environment it condusive for him. A custodial non- custodial sentence is thus necessary .
I proceed to sentence the offender to serve 3 years probation .
14 days Right of Appeal .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
6.3.25
Delivered Virtually Via teams Platform in the presence of :
The offender
Mr Magara for the offender
Mr advocate for the offender
Mr Koima for the state .
CA: Oigo
a) Age of the offender.
b) Being a first offender.
c) Whether the offender pleaded guilty.
d) Character and record of the offender.
e) Commission of the offence in response to gender-based violence.
f) Remorsefulness of the offender.
g) The possibility of reform and social re-adaptation of the offender.
h) Any other factor that the court considers relevant.
I have considered the nature of the offence ,it’s circumstances , mitigation, the age of the offender and the pre-sentence report filed herein . It has emerged from the presentence report that the offender is a son to deceased and that he is a known epileptic which condition at times destabilizes his mental status and that deceased provoked him by mocking him epileptic and hence he reacted and killed him .The family the community and local administration have no issue with his release a non -custodial sentence saying he has no previous criminal record and he was proved by deceased who used to mock him about his medical condition . I have seen a medical report from Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital dated 21.2.23 filed herein which found him mentally unstable to face trial and another dated 10.5.23 which concluded that he was mentally stable and fit to plead. The medical report dated 28.2.25 by Doctor O. Mariita indicates that he is a known diabetic and epileptic and has been on treatment at KTRH .The the home environment it condusive for him. A custodial non- custodial sentence is thus necessary .
I proceed to sentence the offender to serve 3 years probation .
14 days Right of Appeal .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
6.3.25
Delivered Virtually Via teams Platform in the presence of :
The offender
Mr Magara for the offender
Mr advocate for the offender
Mr Koima for the state .
CA: Oigo