JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant’s young daughter, M, had for a long time been suffering from epilepsy. The appellant believed that her condition could only be attributed to witchcraft. The deceased’s cousin, W K, had also lost his daughter, M C in circumstances that was also ascribed to witchcraft, though fatally injured in a bicycle accident. They all figured, H N “the deceased” as the witch who was responsible for the two calamities and many more. The appellant, the deceased and W K are members of the same family. On 21st May, 2011 a family gathering was convened at the home of the deceased to discuss the issue. Several family members including those who resided in the same homestead as the deceased, that is; C N (PW 1), KN (PW 2), JN (PW 3) and KN (PW 4), attended the meeting. Those who did not reside in the compound but all the same attended the meeting included the appellant, his son SK, the appellant’s co-accused during the trial, HK alias JK, WK and WH. In the course of the …