The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has appealed the decision to set free Embakasi East Member of Parliament Babu Owino in the shooting and injuring of Felix Orinda aka DJ Evolve.
The DPP says that he is dissatisfied with the lower court's decision arguing that the trial court made a mistake in acquitting the lawmaker without considering the weight of evidence and testimony adduced by witnesses who testified in the case.
In court papers filed at the Milimani Law Court, the DPP further argues that trial Magistrate Bernard Ochoi made a mistake in law and fact by finding that there was no evidence of the victim having sustained gunshot wounds and that Babu Owino did not intend to shoot the victim.
The DPP says that he is dissatisfied with the lower court's decision arguing that the trial court made a mistake in acquitting the lawmaker without considering the weight of evidence and testimony adduced by witnesses who testified in the case.
Did you read this?
In court papers filed at the Milimani Law Court, the DPP further argues that trial Magistrate Bernard Ochoi made a mistake in law and fact by finding that there was no evidence of the victim having sustained gunshot wounds and that Babu Owino did not intend to shoot the victim.
Magistrate Ochoi chastised the police for conducting "shoddy investigations" when finding Mr. Owino not guilty, claiming that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to convict the politician.
The prosecution has failed to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court ruled after evaluating the evidence.
The investigation officer in the case was criticized by the court for failing to address important issues and for conducting sloppy investigations.
DJ Evolve probably didn't see Babu with a gun because he was busy mixing when Babu Owino shot him but CCTV caught Babu Owino with a gun. pic.twitter.com/lcTW7xIAjA
— Gaddafi (@VeliFrancis) June 22, 2023
Magistrate Ochoi added that the main witness who would have testified against Babu Owino was never called.
The magistrate questioned, "Why did the investigating officer not call the person who recovered the bullet head and cartridge to testify?"
The prosecution was found to have failed to present medical proof that the victim had been shot by a gun, and the ballistic report failed to establish with certainty that the gun had been used in the shooting, the court said.