The Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence of a murder suspect who killed his stepmother in 2010 from 35 to 20 years over his advanced age and for being remorseful over his conduct.
In a ruling given by Appellate judges Asike-Makhandia, Agnes Kalekye Murgor, and Sankale ole Kantai dismissed the man's argument that some of the witnesses gave contradictory accounts of the fateful day and withheld the decision of the High Court.
According to the court documents, the convict, 76, was a first-time offender who was remorseful and deserved the leniency.
"In view of his advanced age, and notwithstanding the immense pain that he has caused to his family, we are inclined to reduce the sentence imposed to 20 years from the date of arrest.," read part of the ruling.
While recounting the event, the prosecution stated that on October 5, 2010, the convict approached the deceased at her Makueni home, demanding the money owed to him.
The deceased's family members, who acted as witnesses, alleged that the convict approached the premises while clutching on crude weapons. He reportedly hit the deceased on the back of her head, killing her on the spot.
In fear of being attacked, the eyewitnesses screamed and alerted the neighbours and police who were patrolling the area. The law enforcers rushed to the scene and found the lady lying in a pool of blood.
Affidavits filed in court detailed that the convict's efforts to seek an alibi to corroborate his statement failed, offering the prosecution the leeway to incriminate him.
In his defence, the convict claimed that he was selling timber for the construction of a building on the fateful day. He also argued that the witnesses presented before the court were minors, thus discrediting their statements.
"The appellant’s first contention was that witnesses one and two were minors and that for this reason, the trial judge ought to have conducted a voir dire examination before they testified; since a voir dire examination was not conducted, their evidence was inadmissible and consequently, the conviction could not be sustained," read part of the court documents.
Voir dire examination is a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence or the competency or qualification of a witness or juror.
He further complained that the post-mortem results were not presented in court, and the pathologist was not called to the stand.
However, the court added that in some cases, it is easier to assess the cause of death without the autopsy result. The judges suggested that the convict knew the impact of hitting the deceased on her neck would kill her.
The court also declined his request to seek compensation, ruling that he did not specify that he has suffered prejudice.
"There is no merit on this ground, and we therefore, dismiss it," the judges declared.
