1.DKK, the accused, cohabited with JK (the deceased). On the fateful day, the deceased was found fatally injured. PW3, Peter Kimani, the landlord of the accused was called by a tenant, and, when he went to the scene he found the deceased lying by the door to the house. PW4 UMK, the caretaker at the plot upon receiving information, went to the scene of the incident and found the deceased already dead. He called the accused on phone but, she disconnected it.
2.PW3 managed to find the accused and caused her to accompany him to the Police Station so as to report the occurrence. PW6 No 234286 Chief Inspector David Wambua, who received the report, stated that the accused alleged that the deceased went home, quarreled her and a fight ensued. That she ran out leaving the deceased who took a knife and stabbed himself before being taken to hospital.
3.However, when they visited the scene they found the deceased behind the door to the house with stab wounds and protruding intestines. Inside the room, items were disarranged, the television set was broken, the bed was not made, and upon searching for the murder weapon, he found the knife on the cupboard.
4.PW7 Dr Dorothy Njeru, who conducted the postmortem concluded that the deceased died of abdominal injuries due to the four penetrative stab wounds on the left lumber region.
5.At this point, this court is required to establish if a prima facie case has been established requiring the accused to be placed on her defence. In the celebrated case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v Republic  EA 332, it was stated that:
6.Looking at crucial evidence summed above, the deceased and the accused were the only people in the room/ house where the incident occurred. Grievous injuries that were inflicted on the person of the deceased were occasioned more than once and the weapon recovered was found to be stained with the deceased’s blood type. Having sustained four (4) stab wounds, it was unlikely that the deceased would move from the spot to where the murder weapon was found and return to where he was found.
7.Therefore, I am satisfied that the prosecution has demonstrated a prima facie case against the accused as defined in the case of Bhatt v Republic that requires her to address the court in her defence. The manner in which she is to render the explanation will be explained to her on the further hearing date.
8.It is so ordered.