The charge against the Accused, Zachary Ng’azura is that of murder, Contrary
to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that
the Accused killed his wife Rose Ng’azura [deceased] on the 14
th February 2023
at Chepkumia Kiprambu Village within Nandi County.
2. The case for the prosecution was anchored on facts to the effect that the Accused
and his deceased wife lived together at their matrimonial home and on the
Material 14
th February 2023, they hosted their daughter, Edah Jerop [PW4] and
her daughter, Jasmine Jeptoo [PW5] at their home in which their young son,
Brian Cheruiyot [PW6] also lived. Also hosted in the home was brother to the
Accused, Daniel Kiepkemboi Rugut [DW1].
3. The couple’s daughter [PW4] had gone to her parents’ home after experiencing
marital problems with her husband at their matrimonial home in Kericho, she was
in the company of the couples grand daughter [PW5] both had been sleeping in
an outside kitchen of the couple’s home together with their mother, the deceased,
who surrendered her usual sleeping area in their main house in order to
accommodate her brother-in-law.
4. At about 3:00am on the material night the screams of the deceased rent the air in
the kitchen awakening all those present therein. The deceased screamed that a
person had hit her on the abdomen she sought for help. Her daughter [PW4]
switched on her mobile phone torch light to illuminate the kitchen area which was
in darkness at the time. It was then that the Accused was seen standing next to
the deceased before deciding with his brother [DW1] to take her to hospital.
5. The deceased’s daughter [PW4] and grand-daughter [PW5] saw the Accused,
but he grand-daughter said that he was at the time standing at the kitchen door.
Another daughter of the deceased, Susan Chepchumba [PW1] was at her home
when she was firstly notified at 4:00am that the deceased was unwell and was
being taken to hospital and later, that she had died.
6. The Accused’s nephew, John Kiprono Mutai [PW3], was awakened at 3:00am
by a phone call from his other uncle [DW1] and notified that the deceased was
unwell and ought to be taken to hospital. He waited for those taking the
deceased to hospital and they eventually arrived in a vehicle which he boarded.
They included the Accused, his brother [DW1], his daughter [PW4] and his son
[PW6].
7. The Accused was driving the vehicle and on the way to Kapsabet District Hospital
it stalled when its fuel tank ran dry. The fuel was obtained after some challenges
and the vehicle driven to White Crescent Hospital where the deceased was
pronounced dead from excessive bleeding occasioned by a stab wound on her
abdomen. Prior to arriving at the hospital, the deceased allegedly told her
daughter [PW4] saying that “I am dying and the people responsible are my father
and Milly.”
8. Milly Cherop Kemboi [PW7] was the person mentioned to Edah [PW4] by the
Accused and was known within their family as the Accused’s secret lover, a fact
acknowledged by her [Milly]. She [PW7] however, said that the relationship was
share lived and that on the material night she was at her business premises
twenty kilometres away from the Accused’s home stead.
9. The Accused’s son [PW6] indicated that on the way to the hospital his mother
[deceased] asked for water as she could talk, but other than asking for and
touching his father [Accused], she [deceased] did not mention anybody. The
Accused’s nephew [PW3] indicated that the deceased was wailing inside the
vehicle and mentioning her children without saying that she was assaulted by the
Accused or any other person even though her neighbour called Arusei or
Kiprotich was suspected to be the culprit assailant after his bunch of keys,
gumboots and a walking stick were found within the compound of the Accused’s
homestead.
10. The said suspect allegedly was away from the scene and remained at large
prompting the local villagers to set his house on fire.
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW2], performed a post-mortem on the body of the
deceased and concluded in his report [P. Exhibit 1] that the deceased died from
excessive internal bleeding due to a penetrative stab wound caused by a sharp
object leading to cardiopulmonary collapse.
11. CPL. Paul Ochieng Ogwalo [PW8], received a report to the effect that the
deceased had been stabbed by an unknown person and died on the way to
hospital. He [PW8] in the course of his investigations recorded statements from
potential witnesses and took photographs of the scene of the offence [P. Exhibit
2[a] which were processed by the scene of crime section of the DCI Nandi
Central under cover of the necessary exhibit memo [P. Exhibit 2[b].
12. The Officer [PW8] indicated that the Accused was implicated by his eldest
daughter [PW4], but several theories emerged from other witnesses suggesting a
family dispute, bad blood between Accused and daughter [PW4], and an illicit
love affair between the Accused and Milly [PW7] as possible motives for the
death of the deceased. It was also indicated by the officer [PW8] that the murder
weapon was never recovered, but some items belonging to a suspect whose
house was razed down by villagers were recovered. The items included a bunch
of keys, a pair of old gumboots and a walking stick.
13. After conclusion of his investigations the officer [PW8] made
recommendations that a public inquest be conducted on the matter, but the
Accused was arrested and charged with the present offence. The Accused
denied the offence and continued to do so in his defence in which he stated that
he was awakened from his sleep by his wife’s [deceased] unusual loud screams
and rushed to the outside kitchen where she was sleeping with their daughter.
His brother [DW1] followed him.
14. On arrival at the kitchen he [Accused] found its door open and his daughter
[PW4] asking the deceased what was wrong. At the time, the deceased was on
the ground, could not talk and appeared unconscious and unresponsive. They
rushed her to hospital when they noticed blood stains on the left side of her
chest. Their vehicle ran out of fuel and stalled on the way but despite the
challenge they obtained fuel in a jerrycan and re-filled the fuel tank after which
they proceeded to White Crescent Hospital in Kapsabet town where the
deceased was pronounced dead after suffering severe bleeding from a fresh stab
wound on the left side of the chest.
15. The Accused recorded his statement with the police on the following
morning and on arrival back home found that a bunch of keys, a pair of gumboots
and a walking stick all belonging to one Daniel Kiprotich Arusei had been
recovered by one Lily Chesang, a neighbour, near the rear side of the kitchen
where the deceased was sleeping. The said Arusei was suspected of having
fatally attacked and assaulted the deceased. He fled from the area and
escaped. He remains at large to date, but his house was set ablaze by the
Villagers.
16. The Accused indicated that the fugitive suspect was prior to the death of the
deceased involved in several criminal activities in the area and at one time his
accomplice by the name of Benard Maiyo threatened him [Accused] after he
[accomplice] was charged with a criminal offence in a case which is ongoing at
the Magistrate’s Court in Kapsabet.
The Accused did not understand why he was arrested and charged with the
present offence which has caused him much suffering such that he lost his
retirement benefits due to his seven month stay in custody. His own relatives
turned against and threatened to kill him thereby prompting him to escape from
his home and seek shelter in Elgeyo Marakwet.
17. The Accused’s brother [DW1] confirmed more or less what the Accused
stated with regard to the happenings at the scene of the offence on the material
night and time. His evidence was in essence a corroboration of the Accused’s
defence that he did not commit the offence against his wife as alleged and that he
was implicated without good or justifiable cause.
18. The totality of the evidence as expressed in both the prosecution and
defence cases reveals that the death of the deceased was as a result of a
criminal act of assault committed against her by an individual or individuals on
that material date and time. This is a fact that was undisputed by both sides.
The circumstances of the case and the degree of the injury inflicted upon the
deceased was a demonstration that the assailant intended to cause grievous
harm to the deceased and by extension cause her death.
19. The motive of the fatal attack as deciphered from the evidence remained
uncertain and a matter of conjecture ranging from family squabbles and animosity
arising from allegations of impropriety and criminal acts made against the
Accused by some of his daughters.
A love triangle between the Accused, his departed wife and the lady called Milly
[PW7] was also featured as a possible motive for the fatal attack on the
deceased and so was the enmity between the Accused’s family and that of the
man known as Daniel Kiprotich Arusei who remains a fugitive after the offence
was committed.
20. Notwithstanding the motive for the fatal attack against the deceased the act
was criminal in nature and was the cause of the demise of the deceased. It was
an act of murder, pure and simple.
The big question, indeed the main issue for determination in this matter, was the
identity of the killer assailant or rather, whether the Accused was positively
identified as the person who attacked the deceased while she was sleeping and
fatally assaulted her using what appeared to be a sharp object which was never
recovered.
21. The burden to establish the identification of the Accused as the Assailant lay
with the prosecution and could only be discharged by availability of sufficient,
cogent and credible evidence of identification from the prosecution against the
Accused who does not in law bear the burden of proving his innocence.
22. In this case, it is evidently clear that none of the prosecution witness saw
the Accused in the act of fatally assaulting the deceased even though he
appeared at the scene of the assault immediately after it had happened.
He explained that his immediate presence at the scene was reaction to the
distressing screams of the deceased and a need to come to her rescue. This
was confirmed by his brother [DW1] who likewise appeared at the scene almost
together with the Accused.
23. The Accused’s daughter [PW4] and grand-daughter [PW5] also confirmed
as much.
In essence, there was no direct evidence of identification availed against the
Accused by the prosecution which was therefore called upon to rely on indirect or
circumstantial evidence in the attempt to prove the charge against the Accused.
24. In that regard, the circumstantial evidence was derived from the Accused’s
daughter [PW4] in the form of suspicion and the alleged dying declaration of the
deceased. Indeed, Edah [PW4] was the key prosecution witness against the
Accused in as much as she saw him at the scene immediately after the fatal
assault and suspected that he was the assailant. The Accused’s grand-daughter
[PW5] was also at the scene at the material time. She saw the Accused standing
at the kitchen door no sooner had the fatal assault occurred. She implied that his
presence at that juncture was to help the deceased and wondered aloud in court
as to why the Accused was charged in court.
25. Contrary to the position taken by the Accused’s daughter [PW4], the
Accused grand-daughter [PW5] did not suspect that the Accused was
responsible for the death of her grandmother [deceased].
As was stated in the case of Republic Vs. Kipkering Arap Koske and Another
16 EACA 135 and the case of Sawe Vs. Republic [2003] KLR 364,
circumstantial evidence must irresistibly point to an Accused Person as the
offender to the exclusion of other persons.
26. Thus, in order to justify the inference of guilt, the exculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
In the case of Simoni Musoke Vs. Republic [1958] EA 715, it was stated that it
is necessary before drawing the inference of the Accused’s guilty from
circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing
circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference [See also, Teper
Vs. Republic [1952] AC 480].
27. In this case, the circumstantial evidence availed against the Accused by the
prosecution was incapable of aligning itself with the legal principles set out in the
decisions cited hereinabove. The evidence of the key prosecution witness
[PW4] in that regard only led to suspicion of the Accused because he appeared
at the scene immediately after the deceased was fatally attacked and injured.
There was no evidence circumstantially connecting the Accused to the murder of
the deceased. Undoubtedly, the evidence strongly indicated that the Accused
was arrested and charged purely on suspicion.
28. Or perhaps on account of his bad blood with his eldest daughter [PW4]. It
is instructure to note that suspicion, however strong cannot be used as evidence
in a criminal case of this nature. It is always upon the prosecution to prove its
case against an Accused Person beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s evidence
herein was not credible and sufficient enough for this court to draw the inference
of the Accused’s guilt from the circumstances of the case considering that there
were other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the
inference as demonstrated by the fact that other possible suspects were
mentioned including the fugitive Daniel Kiprotich Arusei and his accomplice
Benard Maiyo.
29. The discovery of items belonging to the fugitive at the scene of the offence
confirmed his presence there and the fact that he escaped or disappeared from
the area where the offence was committed confirmed that he may have been the
killer assailant rather than the Accused who was actually charged on mere
suspicion. In Republic Vs. Nicholas Wanjohi Gakuya [2017] KETIC 51134
[KLR], it was held that suspicion, no matter how strong, does not obliterate the
prosecution duty to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
30. As regards the dying declaration alluded to by the key prosecution witness
[PW4] it could not be relied upon to hold or infer the Accused’s guilt for want of
credibility and corroboration. The declaration was not heard by any of the other
people in the vehicle used to take the deceased to the hospital. These included
the Accused’s nephew [PW3], the Accused’s son [PW6], the Accused’s brother
[DW1] and the Accused himself. This was a clear demonstration that key witness
[PW4] raised the issue of a dying declaration as an afterthought with a view to
“fixing” her father whom she loathed.
31. In sum, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Accused
beyond reasonable doubt by its failure to lead water tight, cogent, credible and
sufficient circumstantial evidence and indeed, direct evidence of identification
against the Accused who must invariably be accorded the benefit of doubt by
being declared herein NOT GUILTY as charged. He is accordingly acquitted of
the charge and with be at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated and Delivered this 2
nd day of April, 2026
to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that
the Accused killed his wife Rose Ng’azura [deceased] on the 14
th February 2023
at Chepkumia Kiprambu Village within Nandi County.
2. The case for the prosecution was anchored on facts to the effect that the Accused
and his deceased wife lived together at their matrimonial home and on the
Material 14
th February 2023, they hosted their daughter, Edah Jerop [PW4] and
her daughter, Jasmine Jeptoo [PW5] at their home in which their young son,
Brian Cheruiyot [PW6] also lived. Also hosted in the home was brother to the
Accused, Daniel Kiepkemboi Rugut [DW1].
3. The couple’s daughter [PW4] had gone to her parents’ home after experiencing
marital problems with her husband at their matrimonial home in Kericho, she was
in the company of the couples grand daughter [PW5] both had been sleeping in
an outside kitchen of the couple’s home together with their mother, the deceased,
who surrendered her usual sleeping area in their main house in order to
accommodate her brother-in-law.
4. At about 3:00am on the material night the screams of the deceased rent the air in
the kitchen awakening all those present therein. The deceased screamed that a
person had hit her on the abdomen she sought for help. Her daughter [PW4]
switched on her mobile phone torch light to illuminate the kitchen area which was
in darkness at the time. It was then that the Accused was seen standing next to
the deceased before deciding with his brother [DW1] to take her to hospital.
5. The deceased’s daughter [PW4] and grand-daughter [PW5] saw the Accused,
but he grand-daughter said that he was at the time standing at the kitchen door.
Another daughter of the deceased, Susan Chepchumba [PW1] was at her home
when she was firstly notified at 4:00am that the deceased was unwell and was
being taken to hospital and later, that she had died.
6. The Accused’s nephew, John Kiprono Mutai [PW3], was awakened at 3:00am
by a phone call from his other uncle [DW1] and notified that the deceased was
unwell and ought to be taken to hospital. He waited for those taking the
deceased to hospital and they eventually arrived in a vehicle which he boarded.
They included the Accused, his brother [DW1], his daughter [PW4] and his son
[PW6].
7. The Accused was driving the vehicle and on the way to Kapsabet District Hospital
it stalled when its fuel tank ran dry. The fuel was obtained after some challenges
and the vehicle driven to White Crescent Hospital where the deceased was
pronounced dead from excessive bleeding occasioned by a stab wound on her
abdomen. Prior to arriving at the hospital, the deceased allegedly told her
daughter [PW4] saying that “I am dying and the people responsible are my father
and Milly.”
8. Milly Cherop Kemboi [PW7] was the person mentioned to Edah [PW4] by the
Accused and was known within their family as the Accused’s secret lover, a fact
acknowledged by her [Milly]. She [PW7] however, said that the relationship was
share lived and that on the material night she was at her business premises
twenty kilometres away from the Accused’s home stead.
9. The Accused’s son [PW6] indicated that on the way to the hospital his mother
[deceased] asked for water as she could talk, but other than asking for and
touching his father [Accused], she [deceased] did not mention anybody. The
Accused’s nephew [PW3] indicated that the deceased was wailing inside the
vehicle and mentioning her children without saying that she was assaulted by the
Accused or any other person even though her neighbour called Arusei or
Kiprotich was suspected to be the culprit assailant after his bunch of keys,
gumboots and a walking stick were found within the compound of the Accused’s
homestead.
10. The said suspect allegedly was away from the scene and remained at large
prompting the local villagers to set his house on fire.
Dr. Evans Kibiwott [PW2], performed a post-mortem on the body of the
deceased and concluded in his report [P. Exhibit 1] that the deceased died from
excessive internal bleeding due to a penetrative stab wound caused by a sharp
object leading to cardiopulmonary collapse.
11. CPL. Paul Ochieng Ogwalo [PW8], received a report to the effect that the
deceased had been stabbed by an unknown person and died on the way to
hospital. He [PW8] in the course of his investigations recorded statements from
potential witnesses and took photographs of the scene of the offence [P. Exhibit
2[a] which were processed by the scene of crime section of the DCI Nandi
Central under cover of the necessary exhibit memo [P. Exhibit 2[b].
12. The Officer [PW8] indicated that the Accused was implicated by his eldest
daughter [PW4], but several theories emerged from other witnesses suggesting a
family dispute, bad blood between Accused and daughter [PW4], and an illicit
love affair between the Accused and Milly [PW7] as possible motives for the
death of the deceased. It was also indicated by the officer [PW8] that the murder
weapon was never recovered, but some items belonging to a suspect whose
house was razed down by villagers were recovered. The items included a bunch
of keys, a pair of old gumboots and a walking stick.
13. After conclusion of his investigations the officer [PW8] made
recommendations that a public inquest be conducted on the matter, but the
Accused was arrested and charged with the present offence. The Accused
denied the offence and continued to do so in his defence in which he stated that
he was awakened from his sleep by his wife’s [deceased] unusual loud screams
and rushed to the outside kitchen where she was sleeping with their daughter.
His brother [DW1] followed him.
14. On arrival at the kitchen he [Accused] found its door open and his daughter
[PW4] asking the deceased what was wrong. At the time, the deceased was on
the ground, could not talk and appeared unconscious and unresponsive. They
rushed her to hospital when they noticed blood stains on the left side of her
chest. Their vehicle ran out of fuel and stalled on the way but despite the
challenge they obtained fuel in a jerrycan and re-filled the fuel tank after which
they proceeded to White Crescent Hospital in Kapsabet town where the
deceased was pronounced dead after suffering severe bleeding from a fresh stab
wound on the left side of the chest.
15. The Accused recorded his statement with the police on the following
morning and on arrival back home found that a bunch of keys, a pair of gumboots
and a walking stick all belonging to one Daniel Kiprotich Arusei had been
recovered by one Lily Chesang, a neighbour, near the rear side of the kitchen
where the deceased was sleeping. The said Arusei was suspected of having
fatally attacked and assaulted the deceased. He fled from the area and
escaped. He remains at large to date, but his house was set ablaze by the
Villagers.
16. The Accused indicated that the fugitive suspect was prior to the death of the
deceased involved in several criminal activities in the area and at one time his
accomplice by the name of Benard Maiyo threatened him [Accused] after he
[accomplice] was charged with a criminal offence in a case which is ongoing at
the Magistrate’s Court in Kapsabet.
The Accused did not understand why he was arrested and charged with the
present offence which has caused him much suffering such that he lost his
retirement benefits due to his seven month stay in custody. His own relatives
turned against and threatened to kill him thereby prompting him to escape from
his home and seek shelter in Elgeyo Marakwet.
17. The Accused’s brother [DW1] confirmed more or less what the Accused
stated with regard to the happenings at the scene of the offence on the material
night and time. His evidence was in essence a corroboration of the Accused’s
defence that he did not commit the offence against his wife as alleged and that he
was implicated without good or justifiable cause.
18. The totality of the evidence as expressed in both the prosecution and
defence cases reveals that the death of the deceased was as a result of a
criminal act of assault committed against her by an individual or individuals on
that material date and time. This is a fact that was undisputed by both sides.
The circumstances of the case and the degree of the injury inflicted upon the
deceased was a demonstration that the assailant intended to cause grievous
harm to the deceased and by extension cause her death.
19. The motive of the fatal attack as deciphered from the evidence remained
uncertain and a matter of conjecture ranging from family squabbles and animosity
arising from allegations of impropriety and criminal acts made against the
Accused by some of his daughters.
A love triangle between the Accused, his departed wife and the lady called Milly
[PW7] was also featured as a possible motive for the fatal attack on the
deceased and so was the enmity between the Accused’s family and that of the
man known as Daniel Kiprotich Arusei who remains a fugitive after the offence
was committed.
20. Notwithstanding the motive for the fatal attack against the deceased the act
was criminal in nature and was the cause of the demise of the deceased. It was
an act of murder, pure and simple.
The big question, indeed the main issue for determination in this matter, was the
identity of the killer assailant or rather, whether the Accused was positively
identified as the person who attacked the deceased while she was sleeping and
fatally assaulted her using what appeared to be a sharp object which was never
recovered.
21. The burden to establish the identification of the Accused as the Assailant lay
with the prosecution and could only be discharged by availability of sufficient,
cogent and credible evidence of identification from the prosecution against the
Accused who does not in law bear the burden of proving his innocence.
22. In this case, it is evidently clear that none of the prosecution witness saw
the Accused in the act of fatally assaulting the deceased even though he
appeared at the scene of the assault immediately after it had happened.
He explained that his immediate presence at the scene was reaction to the
distressing screams of the deceased and a need to come to her rescue. This
was confirmed by his brother [DW1] who likewise appeared at the scene almost
together with the Accused.
23. The Accused’s daughter [PW4] and grand-daughter [PW5] also confirmed
as much.
In essence, there was no direct evidence of identification availed against the
Accused by the prosecution which was therefore called upon to rely on indirect or
circumstantial evidence in the attempt to prove the charge against the Accused.
24. In that regard, the circumstantial evidence was derived from the Accused’s
daughter [PW4] in the form of suspicion and the alleged dying declaration of the
deceased. Indeed, Edah [PW4] was the key prosecution witness against the
Accused in as much as she saw him at the scene immediately after the fatal
assault and suspected that he was the assailant. The Accused’s grand-daughter
[PW5] was also at the scene at the material time. She saw the Accused standing
at the kitchen door no sooner had the fatal assault occurred. She implied that his
presence at that juncture was to help the deceased and wondered aloud in court
as to why the Accused was charged in court.
25. Contrary to the position taken by the Accused’s daughter [PW4], the
Accused grand-daughter [PW5] did not suspect that the Accused was
responsible for the death of her grandmother [deceased].
As was stated in the case of Republic Vs. Kipkering Arap Koske and Another
16 EACA 135 and the case of Sawe Vs. Republic [2003] KLR 364,
circumstantial evidence must irresistibly point to an Accused Person as the
offender to the exclusion of other persons.
26. Thus, in order to justify the inference of guilt, the exculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
In the case of Simoni Musoke Vs. Republic [1958] EA 715, it was stated that it
is necessary before drawing the inference of the Accused’s guilty from
circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing
circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference [See also, Teper
Vs. Republic [1952] AC 480].
27. In this case, the circumstantial evidence availed against the Accused by the
prosecution was incapable of aligning itself with the legal principles set out in the
decisions cited hereinabove. The evidence of the key prosecution witness
[PW4] in that regard only led to suspicion of the Accused because he appeared
at the scene immediately after the deceased was fatally attacked and injured.
There was no evidence circumstantially connecting the Accused to the murder of
the deceased. Undoubtedly, the evidence strongly indicated that the Accused
was arrested and charged purely on suspicion.
28. Or perhaps on account of his bad blood with his eldest daughter [PW4]. It
is instructure to note that suspicion, however strong cannot be used as evidence
in a criminal case of this nature. It is always upon the prosecution to prove its
case against an Accused Person beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s evidence
herein was not credible and sufficient enough for this court to draw the inference
of the Accused’s guilt from the circumstances of the case considering that there
were other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the
inference as demonstrated by the fact that other possible suspects were
mentioned including the fugitive Daniel Kiprotich Arusei and his accomplice
Benard Maiyo.
29. The discovery of items belonging to the fugitive at the scene of the offence
confirmed his presence there and the fact that he escaped or disappeared from
the area where the offence was committed confirmed that he may have been the
killer assailant rather than the Accused who was actually charged on mere
suspicion. In Republic Vs. Nicholas Wanjohi Gakuya [2017] KETIC 51134
[KLR], it was held that suspicion, no matter how strong, does not obliterate the
prosecution duty to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
30. As regards the dying declaration alluded to by the key prosecution witness
[PW4] it could not be relied upon to hold or infer the Accused’s guilt for want of
credibility and corroboration. The declaration was not heard by any of the other
people in the vehicle used to take the deceased to the hospital. These included
the Accused’s nephew [PW3], the Accused’s son [PW6], the Accused’s brother
[DW1] and the Accused himself. This was a clear demonstration that key witness
[PW4] raised the issue of a dying declaration as an afterthought with a view to
“fixing” her father whom she loathed.
31. In sum, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Accused
beyond reasonable doubt by its failure to lead water tight, cogent, credible and
sufficient circumstantial evidence and indeed, direct evidence of identification
against the Accused who must invariably be accorded the benefit of doubt by
being declared herein NOT GUILTY as charged. He is accordingly acquitted of
the charge and with be at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated and Delivered this 2
nd day of April, 2026