Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 182 of 2002 |
---|---|
Parties: | Benson Mitobio Gitau v Republic |
Date Delivered: | 01 Jul 2005 |
Case Class: | Criminal |
Court: | High Court at Nyeri |
Case Action: | |
Judge(s): | John Micheal Khamoni |
Citation: | Benson Mitobio Gitau v Republic [2005] eKLR |
Case Summary: | Criminal Appeal - offence of store breaking and stealing contrary to Section 306(a) of the Penal Code - corporal punishment set aside |
History Advocates: | Neither party represented |
History County: | Baringo |
Case Outcome: | Allowed |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 182 of 2002
BENSON MITOBIO GITAU……………………………………….….APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
SIMON KIMANI MACHARIA…………………..…………….………APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………….………RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the judgment of P. Mwangulu
District Magistrate I dated 25thFebruary, 2001 in
Criminal Case No. 176 of 1999 in the District
Magistrate’s Court at Kigumo
JUDGMENT
The two Appellants were among five accused persons jointly charged with the offence of store breaking and stealing contrary to Section 306(a) of the Penal Code. They were alleged to have broken into the store of Irati Coffee Factory and stolen a number of items to the total value of Ksh.123,600/= between 27th February, 1999 and 28th February 1999. They faced an alternative count of failing to prevent the commission of a felony contrary to Section 392 of the Penal Code. But having been convicted on the first count, the trial magistrate said nothing about the alternative count.
The two Appellants were employed as watchmen at the factory and the First Appellant was on duty before he handed over to the Second Appellant during the time of the breaking and stealing. I have read the evidence recorded by the trial magistrate. I have read his judgment. I have considered what was said on both sides during the hearing of this appeal. I find there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of each Appellant. The convictions were therefore proper and I dismiss the appeal of each Appellant against his conviction.
On the sentence of five years imprisonment plus three strokes of the cane, I do hereby set aside the three strokes of the cane and reduce the five years to such a period as will enable each Appellant be released tomorrow 2nd July, 2005.