Embakasi East Member of Parliament Babu Owino is a free man following his acquittal in a case pertaining to his alleged misuse of a firearm in connection with the shooting incident involving DJ Evolve.
Magistrate Bernard Ochoi criticized the prosecution for its inadequate presentation of evidence, noting the absence of proof to support the accusations against Babu.
After a thorough examination of the evidence presented during the court proceedings, Ochoi pinpointed two key matters for evaluation in the case.
Firstly, he considered whether Babu was intoxicated and acted in a disorderly manner on the night when he allegedly shot DJ Evolve.
Secondly, the magistrate deliberated on whether DJ Evolve indeed suffered a gunshot wound and, if attributable to Babu, whether there was an intention behind the act.
On the issue of Babu Owino’s sobriety, the court was not convinced by his testimony that he was not drunk because there were prosecution witnesses who testified to seeing him taking alcohol.
However, there was no tangible evidence produced in court by the prosecution to prove he was drunk.
“Samples taken don’t show that the investigating officer desired to know the alcoholic content in Babu’s blood,” the court noted.
The court also said the prosecution did a ‘shoddy job’ as no medical evidence was presented to show what injuries DJ Evolve sustained. Ochoi mentioned that the Investigating officer relied on CCTV footage.
“In my view, the footage can’t be substituted for medical evidence. A medical report or p3 form should have been availed to confirm the victim had suffered a gunshot wound,” said the Magistrate.
Upon reviewing the court-displayed CCTV footage, the court observed that while the background appeared dark, the counter where Babu was standing was clear.
However, the Investigating officer said he could not be able to see or identify Babu’s firearm in the video clip. There was no evidence to show Evolve was injured by a bullet.
“Surprisingly the investigating officer stated that he did not record a statement from DJ Evolve. One wonders whether it was deliberate or a case of negligence,” said the court.
The court also pointed out that the ballistic report didn’t conclusively establish that Babu’s firearms were used in the shooting. The individual who recovered the bullet head and the cartridge was never called in to testify.
“If the bullet head was recovered on the wall as claimed was it not necessary for a ballistic expert to visit the scene and adduce evidence, was it not necessary to provide medical evidence to show that the bullet exited from Evolve’s body and landed on the wall?” posed the magistrate Ochoi.
The ballistic expert and the eight prosecution witnesses provided testimony during the trial, stating their inability to definitively determine if the bullet, cartridge head, and cartridges originated from Babu’s firearm.
They highlighted the fact that numerous firearms could use 9 by 19mm ammunition, implying the potential for other weapons to share the same characteristics.
During the court proceedings, the officer emphasized in his testimony that he could not definitively assert that Babu’s gun was responsible for discharging the retrieved bullet, cartridge head, and cartridge.
“Having evaluated the evidence in court. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,” the Magistrate ruled.
