1. The Accused, Josephat Asman Akhalukha also known as Odipo, is charged
with the murder of Hellen Chemasunde [deceased] on the night of the 19
th
/20
th
August 2021 at Kirondo – Nandi East – Nandi County.
The prosecution case against him was that the deceased and him lived together
as husband and wife and on the night of the 19
th August 2021 at about 8:00pm
their neighbour Geoffrey Peter [PW2] accompanied by one Derrick found the
deceased in a state of intoxication, but declined to take her home despite her
request. Shortly thereafter, they met the Accused looking for the deceased and
carrying an object. He requested them to assist him take her home.
2. Geoffrey [PW2] declined to offer the assistance and went home only to be later
approached by the Accused for a candle and being told by the Accused that his
intoxicated wife was at her grandmother’s home. Earlier at about 8:00pm
screams were heard near the home of Millicent Vugunza [PW1]. She
proceeded to the scene of the screams in the company of neighbours and found
the deceased on the ground crying loudly with the Accused standing next to her
holding a black whip which he used to assault the deceased despite her state of
intoxication.
3. Millicent [PW1] and her neighbours restrained the Accused and urged him to
settle their dispute at home. He told them that his action of beating the deceased
was due to her getting intoxicated at the market. He later took her to hospital
with the assistance of a neighbour, but she passed away later. She [PW1]
viewed the dead body of the deceased and noticed a stab wound. On the day
that followed Geoffrey [PW2], Eliud Maiyo [[PW3] and a son to the deceased,
Amos Kiplagat Mutai [PW4], learnt that the deceased’s dead body was found
lying down on the ground near the farm of one Tuwei. They proceeded to the
scene.
4. Eliud [PW3] and Amos [PW4] noted that the body had a stab wound on the
chest. The police were notified. They arrived at the scene and removed the
body to the mortuary at Nandi Hills Hospital where a doctor Joseph Kangol
carried out a post mortem and compiled the necessary report [P. Exhibit 2]
produced herein by his collegue Dr. Emmanuel Kipleting [PW5].
5. The post mortem report showed that the deceased died from severe
haemorrhagic shock due to severe bleeding secondary to a stab cut wound
through the chest cavity cutting through the right Aortic arch.
Sgt. Benjamin Nyongesa [PW6], indicated that the suspected murder weapon
was a long and sharp pointed knife [P. Exhibit 1] which was recovered in the one
roomed house of the Accused who was traced later and arrested after allegedly
escaping from the scene after the offence.
6. On being arraigned in court, the Accused denied the offence and continued doing
so in his defence in which he stated that he was on the material night told by one
Eric that the deceased was calling for him [the Accused]. The two proceeded to
where the deceased was situated and found her on the ground extremely
intoxicated. She requested to be taken home by him [Accused]. He carried her
with the assistance of Eric who gave up and went away. He [Accused] was in the
process of taking her home on his own when he was hit with a whip by an
unknown person causing him to run away without returning back. He learnt of
the death of the deceased a month thereafter.
7. The offence of murder occurs when a person intentionally cases the death of
another. The intention may be manifested directly or indirectly by way of causing
grievous harm to the victim.
The prosecution was therefore required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased herein was actually murdered and that the person responsible for
the unlawful act was the Accused.
8. The Accused’s defence was a denial of having caused the death of the deceased
and an indication that a third party was responsible for the offence.
However, the Accused did not deny having been at the scene of the offence with
the deceased prior to her death. This was confirmed by the prosecution
witnesses in particular Millicent [PW1] and Geoffrey [PW2].
Millicent [PW1] pointed out that the Accused was found at the scene assaulting
his “wife” i.e. the deceased.
9. The doctor’s postmortem report [P. Exhibit 2] showed that the deceased suffered
grievous harm from which she bled to death. The degree of the injury left no
doubt that the Assailant intended to terminate the life of the deceased and
actually did terminate it by use of a sharp object which was later found with the
Accused.
10. Although there was nobody who saw the Accused in the act of stabbing and
fatally wounding the deceased on her chest the circumstances surrounding her
death placed the Accused as the prime suspect.
He was seen at the scene assaulting the deceased, he was left alone with her,
but was never traced at the scene or within his neighbourhood after the body of
the deceased was found at the scene. He actually disappeared from the area
before he was traced and arrested. The suspect murder weapon was recovered
in his house.
11. All those factors pointed towards his criminal culpability for the death of the
deceased and rendered his defence an afterthought. The allegation that he was
hit with a whip by an unknown person as he was taking the deceased home was
nothing short of a “bull and cock” story. This was aptly captured by the
prosecution when it submitted as follows: -
“It is not a coincidence that the Accused was seen with a dagger
on the night of the incident and about two days later the body of
the deceased discovered with a deep stab wound to the chest.
Further the same dagger that was in the possession of the
Accused [Exhibit 1] was retrieved from the house where the
Accused and the deceased were cohabiting.
The only logic conclusion that flows from the foregoing set of
facts is that the Accused stabbed the deceased using a dagger
and thereafter fled to avoid capture until about a month later
when he was brought to book.”
This court cannot agree more with the submissions aforementioned.
12. It may be added that the disappearance of the Accused from the scene and
area of the offence after its commission was a clear demonstration of his guilt and
guilty mind. [See, Malowa Vs. Republic 1980 KLR 110].
Other than the direct evidence of the Accused assaulting the deceased provided
by Millicent [PW1] the circumstantial evidence against him was water tight and
justified an inference that he was responsible for the murder of the deceased to
the exclusion of any other person.
13. This court is satisfied that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the
innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of guilt of the Accused. There was no demonstration of co-
existing circumstances which could weaken or destroy the inference of guilt [See,
Simon Muboke Vs. Republic [1958] E.A. 715].
In sum, it is the finding of this court that the prosecution discharged its burden of
proving its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is
hereby found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 2
nd day of April, 2026
with the murder of Hellen Chemasunde [deceased] on the night of the 19
th
/20
th
August 2021 at Kirondo – Nandi East – Nandi County.
The prosecution case against him was that the deceased and him lived together
as husband and wife and on the night of the 19
th August 2021 at about 8:00pm
their neighbour Geoffrey Peter [PW2] accompanied by one Derrick found the
deceased in a state of intoxication, but declined to take her home despite her
request. Shortly thereafter, they met the Accused looking for the deceased and
carrying an object. He requested them to assist him take her home.
2. Geoffrey [PW2] declined to offer the assistance and went home only to be later
approached by the Accused for a candle and being told by the Accused that his
intoxicated wife was at her grandmother’s home. Earlier at about 8:00pm
screams were heard near the home of Millicent Vugunza [PW1]. She
proceeded to the scene of the screams in the company of neighbours and found
the deceased on the ground crying loudly with the Accused standing next to her
holding a black whip which he used to assault the deceased despite her state of
intoxication.
3. Millicent [PW1] and her neighbours restrained the Accused and urged him to
settle their dispute at home. He told them that his action of beating the deceased
was due to her getting intoxicated at the market. He later took her to hospital
with the assistance of a neighbour, but she passed away later. She [PW1]
viewed the dead body of the deceased and noticed a stab wound. On the day
that followed Geoffrey [PW2], Eliud Maiyo [[PW3] and a son to the deceased,
Amos Kiplagat Mutai [PW4], learnt that the deceased’s dead body was found
lying down on the ground near the farm of one Tuwei. They proceeded to the
scene.
4. Eliud [PW3] and Amos [PW4] noted that the body had a stab wound on the
chest. The police were notified. They arrived at the scene and removed the
body to the mortuary at Nandi Hills Hospital where a doctor Joseph Kangol
carried out a post mortem and compiled the necessary report [P. Exhibit 2]
produced herein by his collegue Dr. Emmanuel Kipleting [PW5].
5. The post mortem report showed that the deceased died from severe
haemorrhagic shock due to severe bleeding secondary to a stab cut wound
through the chest cavity cutting through the right Aortic arch.
Sgt. Benjamin Nyongesa [PW6], indicated that the suspected murder weapon
was a long and sharp pointed knife [P. Exhibit 1] which was recovered in the one
roomed house of the Accused who was traced later and arrested after allegedly
escaping from the scene after the offence.
6. On being arraigned in court, the Accused denied the offence and continued doing
so in his defence in which he stated that he was on the material night told by one
Eric that the deceased was calling for him [the Accused]. The two proceeded to
where the deceased was situated and found her on the ground extremely
intoxicated. She requested to be taken home by him [Accused]. He carried her
with the assistance of Eric who gave up and went away. He [Accused] was in the
process of taking her home on his own when he was hit with a whip by an
unknown person causing him to run away without returning back. He learnt of
the death of the deceased a month thereafter.
7. The offence of murder occurs when a person intentionally cases the death of
another. The intention may be manifested directly or indirectly by way of causing
grievous harm to the victim.
The prosecution was therefore required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased herein was actually murdered and that the person responsible for
the unlawful act was the Accused.
8. The Accused’s defence was a denial of having caused the death of the deceased
and an indication that a third party was responsible for the offence.
However, the Accused did not deny having been at the scene of the offence with
the deceased prior to her death. This was confirmed by the prosecution
witnesses in particular Millicent [PW1] and Geoffrey [PW2].
Millicent [PW1] pointed out that the Accused was found at the scene assaulting
his “wife” i.e. the deceased.
9. The doctor’s postmortem report [P. Exhibit 2] showed that the deceased suffered
grievous harm from which she bled to death. The degree of the injury left no
doubt that the Assailant intended to terminate the life of the deceased and
actually did terminate it by use of a sharp object which was later found with the
Accused.
10. Although there was nobody who saw the Accused in the act of stabbing and
fatally wounding the deceased on her chest the circumstances surrounding her
death placed the Accused as the prime suspect.
He was seen at the scene assaulting the deceased, he was left alone with her,
but was never traced at the scene or within his neighbourhood after the body of
the deceased was found at the scene. He actually disappeared from the area
before he was traced and arrested. The suspect murder weapon was recovered
in his house.
11. All those factors pointed towards his criminal culpability for the death of the
deceased and rendered his defence an afterthought. The allegation that he was
hit with a whip by an unknown person as he was taking the deceased home was
nothing short of a “bull and cock” story. This was aptly captured by the
prosecution when it submitted as follows: -
“It is not a coincidence that the Accused was seen with a dagger
on the night of the incident and about two days later the body of
the deceased discovered with a deep stab wound to the chest.
Further the same dagger that was in the possession of the
Accused [Exhibit 1] was retrieved from the house where the
Accused and the deceased were cohabiting.
The only logic conclusion that flows from the foregoing set of
facts is that the Accused stabbed the deceased using a dagger
and thereafter fled to avoid capture until about a month later
when he was brought to book.”
This court cannot agree more with the submissions aforementioned.
12. It may be added that the disappearance of the Accused from the scene and
area of the offence after its commission was a clear demonstration of his guilt and
guilty mind. [See, Malowa Vs. Republic 1980 KLR 110].
Other than the direct evidence of the Accused assaulting the deceased provided
by Millicent [PW1] the circumstantial evidence against him was water tight and
justified an inference that he was responsible for the murder of the deceased to
the exclusion of any other person.
13. This court is satisfied that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the
innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of guilt of the Accused. There was no demonstration of co-
existing circumstances which could weaken or destroy the inference of guilt [See,
Simon Muboke Vs. Republic [1958] E.A. 715].
In sum, it is the finding of this court that the prosecution discharged its burden of
proving its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is
hereby found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.
Dated and Delivered this 2
nd day of April, 2026