• Regarding the offence of uttering a false document, the judge said the trial court ought to have given the appellants the benefit of the doubt with respect to the same.
• This, she said, is because there was no evidence that they uttered the document relating to the count.
Image: FILE
Once upon a love story, in 1989, Marilyn Mercy Wanjiru, now a mother of two, and Kanwajit Signh Chadda met and began a romantic relationship.
They however parted ways after a while but then in 1999, they rekindled their relationship and 14 years later, started living as husband and wife.
In 2018, the couple decided to solemnise their union and since Chadda had embraced Christianity, they celebrated their marriage at the International Pentecostal Holiness Church Africa, based in Ngara Estate.
The marriage was presided over by Christopher Mutira on July 27, 2018, and attended by 10 invited guests.
At the time, Wanjiru was 49 years old while Chadda was 76 years.
Prior to their wedding, they had applied for a special license which was approved a day before the ceremony, and after the verification process, they were issued with the license.
Tragedy however struck on October 31, 2018, when Chadda succumbed to a heart attack. He died intestate.
Intestate is when a person dies without making or writing a will.
When Wanjiru claimed her dead husband's wealth, his brother Parminder Singh Chatta came out objecting that Chadda was married.
They moved to Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court where Chatta testified that his family had tried to convince the deceased to marry but he refused.
Chatta maintained that although he did not live in Kenya, he was in constant communication with his deceased brother.
He added that at no particular time did Chadda inform him that he was married to Wanjiru.
The man was apprehensive that his brother's death and subsequent cremation was peculiar, considering the haste at which it was undertaken.
He testified that he knew Wanjiru but maintained that she was not his deceased brother's wife.
The prosecution called four witnesses to support its case, including a state counsel who said he was in charge of approving marriage registration certificates at the registrar marriages in 2018.
He told the court that Chadda and Wanjiru made an application for the special license.
He maintained that the special license and the marriage certificate were issued regularly.
On his part, the Investigating Officer said he had received a complaint from Chatta who raised doubts as to the authenticity of the marriage certificate issued.
He told the court that a probe established that Wanjiru was the deceased's employee.
On cross-examination, he conceded that the state counsel acknowledged the anomaly in the marriage certificate as to the customary law entry.
Another witness, a forensic document examiner testified that he was required to identify whether the signature on the marriage certificate and the identification report from the National Registration Bureau was the known signature of the deceased.
After conducting a forensic analysis, his opinion was that the signatures were made by two different authors.
The defence produced three witnesses including Wanjiru, who narrated her romantic journey with Chadda and the pastor who officiated their union.
A private forensic document examiner was also called and told the court that he received instructions to examine and compare signatures to determine whether they share a common origin.
After a thorough analysis of the signature on the marriage certificate and the signature presented, it was his finding that they were made by the same author.
In its ruling, the trial court said the marriage certificate was forged for certain benefits.
The trial magistrate ruled that Wanjiru and the pastor had a motive and an opportunity to present forged documents to the Registrar of Marriages.
They were consequently convicted of two counts of forgery and uttering a false document with intent to deceive.
They were each sentenced to pay a fine of Sh200,000 in default to serve a year imprisonment for forgery.
For the second count, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of Sh50,000 in default to serve six months imprisonment.
The default sentences were to run consecutively.
Wanjiru and Mutira were however aggrieved with the court's decision and appealed at the High Court.
Judge Diana Kavedza reviewed the facts and found that pieces of evidence presented by the parties' forensic experts conflicted.
The state expert found that the signatures did not match while the defence's found that the signature on the marriage certificate matched Chadda's known signature.
The judge noted that the Prosecution Witness's (PW's) evidence was the only nexus between Wanjiru, the pastor and the alleged forgery.
His evidence, however, was not corroborated with that of the State Counsel.
The court further noted that the defence's forensic expert indicated the factors and variances that cause changes in handwriting over a long period of time as is the case herein.
It also noted that on the other hand, it was unclear, when the signature specimen used by the state witness was acquired.
"Considering factors such as time, and the ailments that were suffered by the deceased, it is my finding that the trial court was in error in dismissing the evidence of DW 3 (forensic expert)," the court document reads.
It added that the trial court also failed to consider the evidence of the state forensic expert against all other available evidence.
"I find that the trial court relied on logical reasoning to convict the appellants, whereas there was no actual evidence that served to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt," Judge Kavedza ruled.
Regarding the offence of uttering a false document, the judge said the trial court ought to have given the appellants the benefit of the doubt with respect to the same.
This, she said, is because there was no evidence that they uttered the document relating to the count.
"I have carefully re-evaluated all the evidence on record, but I found no evidence that proved that it is the appellant who uttered the marriage certificate which was alleged to be forged," the judgement dated October 12, reads.
In light of the above, Judge Kavedza quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence against Wanjiru and Mutira.
"The fine paid by the appellant be refunded forthwith. The appellants are set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held."