Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Case 67 of 2005 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | REPUBLIC v REUBEN KIPTANUI KIPTOO |
| Date Delivered: | 21 Jun 2006 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Eldoret |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | Jeanne Wanjiku Gacheche |
| Citation: | REPUBLIC v REUBEN KIPTANUI KIPTOO [2006] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Mr. Omutelema state counsel for the Republic; Mr. Kutwa for the accused person |
| Advocates: | Mr. Omutelema state counsel for the Republic; Mr. Kutwa for the accused person |
| Case Summary: | CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - prosecution – accused was charged with the offence of murder – burden of proof – whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proof place on them – Penal Code (Cap. 63) section 203 as read with 204 |
| 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 ELDORET
Criminal Case 67 of 2005
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………… PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
REUBEN KIPTANUI KIPTOO ……………………………...................………………… ACCUSED
RULING
REUBEN KIPTANUI KIPTOO has been charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 5/6/2005 at Kamok Village, Kapchelal Sub-Location, Kokwao Location in Keiyo District of the Rift Valley Province, he murdered JOSEPH KORIR KIMITEI.
The prosecution called nine (9) witnesses, at the end of which, it was of the view that Kiptoo, whom I shall now refer to as ‘the accused’ should be placed on his defence, while the defence was of a different view.
It is my task at this stage, to rule on whether, the prosecution has established that it has a prima facie case to warrant placing the accused on his defence.
I am guided by the legal principle that ‘the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a prima facie case is not made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possible be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction……..the question whether there is a case to answer cannot depend only on whether there is “some evidence irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put the accused on his defence. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough; nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence”’ (RAMANLAL TRAMBAKLAL BHATT v. R. [1957] E.A.332,333)
I have evaluated the evidence for the prosecution and I am of the view that the prosecution has a prima facie case against him and that it is necessary that the accused be placed on his defence, and I accordingly place him on his defence.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 21st day of June 2006.
JEANNE GACHECHE
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
Mr. Omutelema for the state
Mr. Mwetich holding brief for Mr. Kutwa for the accused person
Accused person
Please Wait. Searching ...