Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Criminal Case 56 of 2018 |
---|---|
Parties: | Republic v Winnie Jepkorir Kirop & Irine Yatich Kirop |
Date Delivered: | 17 Mar 2022 |
Case Class: | Criminal |
Court: | High Court at Eldoret |
Case Action: | Judgment |
Judge(s): | Eric Kennedy Okumu Ogola |
Citation: | Republic v Winnie Jepkorir Kirop & another [2022] eKLR |
Court Division: | Criminal |
County: | Uasin Gishu |
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
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO.56 OF 2018
REPUBLIC........................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
WINNIE JEPKORIR KIROP.......................................................................... 1ST ACCUSED
IRINE YATICH KIROP...................................................................................2ND ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
1. The 1st accused herein was charged with the offence of murder, which under plea bargain, was reduced to offence of manslaughter under Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on the 2nd day of August 2018 at Karena Village in Marakwet East Sub-county within Elgeyo Marakwet County, together with another before the court jointly caused the death of one Jeremiah Kipkemoi Kirotich.
2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge.
Factual Basis
3. On 1/8/2018 at about 1.00 p.m the deceased, who was the husband of the accused returned home while drunk. He took kshs.1000/- that was on the table. The money was for food and the accused told the deceased to return that money. The deceased declined, and a quarrel ensued. The two got physical and the accused overpowered the deceased and he fell on the ground. The accused started biting the deceased while he was lying on the ground. The accused’s sister, Irene Yatich who saw the two fight, took a stone and hit the deceased with it. The two continued to pin the deceased to the ground and managed to retrieve the money. They then let him go. The deceased entered the house and slept. At about 7.30 p.m the deceased complained of headache. The accused gave him pain killers. At about 5.00 a.m. the accused tried waking up the deceased but he was not responding. At that point the accused went and notified neighbours and relatives. It was then established that the deceased had already died. The accused and her sister were arrested and taken to Tot Police Station. The accused and her sister Irene were later charged with murder after the postmortem was conducted on 9/8/2018 and the cause of death was established to be blunt injury on the head. The postmortem report was produced as prosecution exhibit No.1.
4. The accused confirmed the above facts as correct.
5. The court then entered the plea of guilty on behalf of the accused for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The accused was then convicted on her plea of guilty for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code.
6. The prosecution submitted that the accused was a first offender.
7. On her part, the accused stated that she was remorseful and that the facts which led to the death of her deceased husband were unfortunate, that both of them were drunk, and that she regretted the same. The accused has 3 young children. The family of the deceased has forgiven her and pray that she may be given a non custodial sentence.
8. I have also considered the pre sentence report filed herein by the Probation Service. The report states that the family of the deceased has forgiven the accused, who has very young children who need her care. Those children now have only the accused as the remaining parent.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions by parties herein. The proof of offence of manslaughter attracts a maximum sentence of life in prison. In this case however, there was a clear provocation. The fight did not immediately result in death. Death followed later, unexpectedly. The accused has been in custody for 4 years, during which time the accused conceived and delivered a baby in prison. In my view, a non-custodial sentence would serve more justice for the accused and victim.
10. I therefore jail the accused to a probation period of 3 years under supervision of the Probation Service.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON 17TH OF MARCH 2022.
E. K. OGOLA
JUDGE