You are here  » Home   » Kenya

Class 3 boy found guilty of killing girlfriend in Naivasha

By Antony Gitonga | Published Tue, June 20th 2017 at 00:00, Updated June 19th 2017 at 20:08 GMT +3
Lawyer Francis Mburu has a word with the 12 year old minor who was charged before Naivasha High Court judge Christine Meoli with murdering 11-year-old Mary Nduta in Magumu village in Kinangop. The minor denied the charge and the judge directed that he be held at Engineer Police station in Kinangop until the 28th of July when the case will come up for mentioning. Photo by Antony Gitonga

The High Court has found a 12-year-old boy guilty of murdering his 11-year-old "girlfriend".

Justice Christine Meoli dismissed the Standard Three pupil's defence that dark forces ordered him to stab the girl three times as the two had sex.

However, the court ruled that the accused was experiencing a difficult childhood in a dysfunctional family and sent him to Kimumu junior probation hostels for three years.

The Standard Three pupil from Kinangop had being charged with murder after stabbing his "girlfriend" to death on July 5, 2016 in Kibuyu village in Magumu.

In his defence the boy, who was represented by lawyer Francis Mburu, said dark forces directed him to stab the girl.

The boy told the court that he was getting intimate with the girl when a tall man armed with a machete and a shiny knife appeared and ordered him to kill her.

Stay informed while on the go by subscribing to the Standard Group SMS service. Text the word 'NEWS' to 22840.

Dismissed defence

After stabbing the girl, the boy confessed to her sister.

But in her ruling, the court dismissed the boy's defence describing it as incredible.

The judge ruled that from evidence adduced in court, the girl could have rebuffed the boy's advances leading to the fatal attack.

Meoli noted that minutes before she died, the girl told her relatives the person who had stabbed her.

On the accused defence that a mysterious man dressed in a dark cap appeared to him before the incident, the judge termed it as fiction and an invention of the minor.

She added that during the trial, the boy was careful to cover any loopholes describing him as having a fertile but corrupted imagination.

"The accused defence is unbelievable, conjured to absolve him and the prosecution has proven the case beyond any reasonable doubt," she said.

The judge noted that it would be unfair to return the minor back to the harsh background that he had been raised in, adding that he need counseling and education.

"There is no need to send the boy back to the dysfunctional background but to a place where he can be rehabilitated," she ruled.