REPUBLIC V MUSILI TULO[2012]eKLR same in Kiswahili. When he recorded the statement, he did not threaten or intimidate the accused. He tendered in evidence the statement. Cross-examined he stated that the accused was brought to his office by an officer from the report office. The accused was not threatened so as to record the statement. The accused signed the statement voluntarily. Asked by the court to translate the statement into English, the witness stated that in English, the accused meant:“I assaulted her because of the business money of Kshs. 18,000/=. I killed her and left her body in the bush.” I.P. Harrison Kombo (PW8) took the accused’s statement under inquiry. He did not intimidate him into making the statement nor did he coerce him. He did so voluntarily and without duress. The accused thereafter signed the statement. The same was tendered in evidence. Cross-examined, the witness stated that the accused was brought to him after 4pm. There was no other person in the office. He bought the accused a soda as a way of welcoming him. It was not an inducement for him to own up to the crime. He denied that the statement was pre-recorded and the accused forced to sign. With this the prosecution closed its case. Having found that the accused had a case to answer, the accused elected to give a sworn statement and called no witnesses. He stated that on 30th March, 2010, 3 ladies came and took away his wife, the deceased having been sent by his father in law. The following day he visited his in laws and was told to avail 2 heads of cattle as dowry. He told them that he did not have the cows then. However, he was told categorically that if he wished to have his wife back he should pay the 2 heads of cattle. He went back home and left for Narok on 18th April, 2010 where he remained until July 2010 when 2 police officers arrested him from a construction site in Narok and took him to Narok Police Station. He was later transferred to Mwingi Police Station and subsequently charged. He denied having signed any statement. On 30th June, 2010, he was in Narok. The hat tendered in evidence did not belong to him. He also did not have a mobile phone then as the one he had was stolen in February, 2010. He had a dispute with his brother, Mutua over land. His brother wants him jailed so that he can take the entire land. He therefore set him u p with the case. He was also aware of his problem with the deceased. Otherwise, he did not commit the crime. Cross-examined by Mr. Mukofu, learned State Counsel, he responded that the deceased had been taken by her parents for want of dowry on 30th March, 2010. Since then she had been staying with her parents. He had not been made aware that she had disappeared. During that month he was staying in Narok. He last saw the deceased on 30th March, 2010. However, he had no evidence to show that he was in Narok if at all. He denied having talked with the police on phone since he had lost his phone in February, 2010. He did not know where the body of the deceased was recovered. That then marked the close of the defence case. Parties thereafter agreed to put in final written submissions. This was subsequently done. I have carefully read and considered the same alongside cited authorities. A charge of murder is established where evidence shows that a “person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission.” So that in this case for the prosecution to successfully prosecute the accused, it must show by cogent and credible evidence, that the deceased passed on, that she so passed on due to unlawful act or omission of the accused and that the unlawful act or omission was accompanied by malice aforethought . http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 4/8