The deceased, a woman aged about 48 years was in the business of selling “Busaa” – a traditional liquor in her house. On the material day the appellant went to the house of the deceased where he took some “busaa”. Thereafter the appellant became disorderly. He banged the window of the house and started making noise thereby scaring customers.
The deceased asked the appellant to stop making noise and a quarrel ensued. The appellant left the scene but went back shortly thereafter, removed a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left-ear. The deceased sustained a stab wound and bruising at the left periauriallar and post auricular area and died instantly Dr. Mwangi who later performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased formed the opinion that the cause of death was subdural and intracranial haemorrhage leading to the compression of the brain with consequent cardio-respiratory arrest.
At the hearing of the appeal the appellant asked for forgiveness from the Court and family members of the deceased and submitted, among other things, that, he committed the offence unintentionally and that he has small children; that his wife has gone mad; that his house was burnt and that he has now acquired useful skills in prison which he can utilize in nation building. Mr. Omutelema, the learned Senior Principal State Counsel, opposed the appeal intimating that the sentence was legal and proper.
Although the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilt, he has by virtue of section 379 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, a right of appeal against the extent or legality of the sentence.
It is clear from the foregoing that the trial Judge took into account relevant factors in assessing the appropriate sentence. The matters raised by the appellant before us were raised before the trial Judge, and duly considered. It is apparent that the appellant after quarrelling with the deceased left the scene and returned later armed with a knife and mercilessly stabbed to death a helpless middle aged woman.
Sentencing is essentially a matter of exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court. In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was no error in principle and that the sentence was not hash or manifestly excessive.