The Case of Moureen Nafula: A Tragic Murder and Legal Reversal
In a case that has captured public attention, a woman convicted of murdering her husband by scalding him with hot water has been released after the Court of Appeal overturned her 20-year jail sentence. The incident, which took place in Khalumani sub-location, Bungoma County, on March 2, 2017, led to the death of Francis Wanyonyi Wesusia.
The Incident and Initial Response
On that day, residents heard desperate cries of “Mama nakufa” (“Mother, I am dying”) from the home of the deceased. Witnesses later found Francis staggering out of the house with severe burns, his skin peeling due to the injury. According to one relative who was present, the deceased named his wife, Moureen Nafula Wanyonyi, as the person who poured hot water on him while he slept. Another relative confirmed this account, stating that the deceased blamed his wife for the attack.
The couple’s minor daughter also testified, claiming she saw her mother boil water and pour it on her father while he was asleep. She added that her parents had a troubled marriage, with the father often assaulting her mother. Police officers and medical witnesses supported these claims.
The Trial and Conviction
Peter Muthini, an officer who visited the scene, confirmed that the deceased had extensive burns and was arrested immediately. Kipchumba Kuto, the investigating officer, noted that the deceased sustained 36 percent burns and was unable to record a statement due to his condition. He later died, and the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Edward Bilembo, who concluded that the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest following third-degree burns.
In her defense, Moureen denied deliberately attacking her husband. She claimed that she returned home for lunch when her husband, who appeared intoxicated, arrived with another woman. According to her, the deceased struck her with a stick during an argument, and as they struggled, he accidentally fell into boiling water in the kitchen. She maintained that the incident was accidental and that she never intended to kill or injure him.
However, the High Court in Bungoma, presided over by Justice Riechi, rejected this defense. The court ruled that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, relying heavily on the deceased’s dying declarations and the testimony of the child witness. The judge held that by boiling water and pouring it on a sleeping man, the appellant must have known that grievous harm or death was likely to occur.
The Appeal and Legal Arguments
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Moureen lodged an appeal. Her counsel argued that the trial court relied on uncorroborated evidence from a child and failed to call a key witness—the woman who accompanied the deceased home on the day of the incident. Additionally, the defense submitted that the trial court ignored the possibility that the appellant was a victim of domestic violence and that the circumstances could be explained by battered woman syndrome (BWS).
The State opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the deceased’s consistent dying declarations pointed to his wife as the attacker. They argued that the act of boiling water and pouring it on a sleeping person showed clear intent to cause harm, satisfying the threshold for malice aforethought. On the issue of battered woman syndrome, the prosecution stated that the deceased was asleep at the time and posed no immediate threat, making self-defense or provocation inapplicable.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
In its judgment delivered in Kisumu, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. The court acknowledged that the evidence of dying declarations, corroborated by medical testimony, proved that the appellant poured hot water on her husband. However, they noted that the trial court failed to adequately consider the history of domestic violence and the psychological trauma endured by the appellant.
While reaffirming that battered woman syndrome is not a standalone defense in Kenya, the judges stated it could be weighed as a mitigating factor during sentencing. They observed that the appellant had spent years in custody, had no prior record, and that her actions were influenced by a violent domestic relationship.
“We therefore reduce it to the term already served, which we consider sufficient in the circumstances. The appellant shall therefore be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. To that limited extent, the appeal on sentence succeeds,” the judges ruled.
