A murder case that drew widespread public attention has ended with the High Court acquitting rally driver Maxine Wahome, after finding that the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to link her to the death of her boyfriend, Asad Khan.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Lilian Mutende held that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case to require Wahome to defend herself against the murder charge.
“In totality, having considered all the evidence before the court, the case presented by the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case warranting that the accused person be placed on her defence,” the judge ruled.
The ruling followed the close of the prosecution’s case, during which 29 witnesses testified in an effort to prove that Wahome was responsible for the injuries that resulted in Khan’s death.
Throughout the trial, Wahome denied the charge and maintained that Khan sustained the injuries during a confrontation between them.
The State’s case rested mainly on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors argued that because Wahome and Khan were the only two people inside the house when the incident happened, she should be held responsible for the injuries.
Justice Mutende, however, found that the evidence presented did not point only to Wahome and failed to rule out other possible explanations of how Khan was injured.
The court heard from witnesses who responded after hearing a disturbance at the house. They testified that they heard Khan telling Wahome to leave, but none of them witnessed the incident that caused his injuries.
Evidence from the crime scene officer showed bloodstains on the staircase leading to the rear balcony and on pieces of broken glass from a door. The officer told the court that the shattered glass was the only object at the scene that appeared capable of causing the injuries, while other items recovered, including a penknife and a metal object, did not contain bloodstains.
The court further heard that investigators found no major signs of a struggle inside the bedroom and no blood on several other items examined during the investigation.
According to the statement Wahome gave investigators, an argument broke out before Khan allegedly attempted to assault her, forcing her to lock herself on the balcony. She said Khan repeatedly tried to force the door open and struck it, causing the glass to shatter.
The prosecution questioned that explanation, saying it did not fully account for what happened inside the house. Even so, the investigating officer admitted there was no conclusive evidence proving that Wahome inflicted the injuries.
Medical evidence also presented another possible account of what happened. A doctor testified that some of Khan’s injuries could have been sustained after falling down the stairs.
The defence also questioned events that followed the incident, arguing that complications during Khan’s treatment may have contributed to his eventual death. Earlier testimony heard by the court showed that Khan suffered heavy blood loss before later developing complications while receiving medical care.
Justice Mutende also considered evidence touching on the couple’s relationship, including WhatsApp conversations exchanged before the incident. The messages showed Khan repeatedly calling and texting Wahome while she was out with friends, asking where she was and why she was not answering his calls.
Witnesses also testified about problems in the relationship, with one witness describing Khan as having previously been violent towards women he had dated.
The prosecution further invited the court to consider Wahome’s conduct after the incident, including her failure to visit Khan in hospital or attend his burial. The judge, however, ruled that those actions alone could not be relied upon to prove criminal responsibility.
“There is the question of fear or discomfort, which was brought up since, from the outset, the accused was a suspect and she was adamant about it,” the judge observed.
Justice Mutende also reminded the court that circumstantial evidence can only support a conviction where it leaves no reasonable alternative explanation.
After reviewing all the evidence presented by the prosecution, the judge concluded that the legal threshold required to place Wahome on her defence had not been met, bringing the murder trial to an end with her acquittal.