Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Komaip [1997] PGNC 31; N1557 (21 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1557

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 102 OF 1997
STATE
V
BEPI MOLO KOMAIP

Mount Hagen

Akuram J
17 March 1997
21 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - murder - wife stabbing girl-friend of husband - plea - sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.

21 March 1997

AKURAM J: The brief facts are that on the 20th November 1996, the prisoner suspected that the deceased was having an adulterous affair with her husband. Prisoner came across the deceased in a public place where the game of bingo was played. Prisoner stabbed the deceased on the neck almost completely severed the carotid artery and deceased died. In her allocutus the prisoner said that she had been left in the house with her two children for the last six months. At that time two children were sick and she had to take them to the hospital. Her husband did not visit them. While on her way to the clinic that fatal day, prisoner saw her husband and deceased at the market. The deceased saw prisoner and pointed her thump up - meaning top. When she saw that she felt bad about it so she stabbed the deceased.

In mitigation for sentence, her Counsel submitted that prisoner is married with 2 children, married for seven (7) years, villager, no formal education and is aged 25 years. She is a first offender, pleaded guilty and had co-operated with police. Counsel referred me to answers to questions 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 to 36 to stress the fact that the victim should have realized the consequences of going around with a married man and should have suspected what may happen. That is that polygamous relationships do cause disharmony in villages which is becoming a common knowledge these days. That fatal day prisoner caught up with deceased and due to frustrations she did what she did. Counsel submitted that there is provocation in the non-legal sense.

The prison also has been in custody for 3 months and 19 days as of 28/11/96. That compensation was ordered by village court to be paid by the 22/2/97.

Counsel referred me to the case of Laura (No.2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98 which sets out the guidelines on principles in such cases. He therefore submitted that a starting point of 6 years be considered in the present case.

State Counsel responded by saying that the case of Laura (No.2) guidelines are now too low and this should now be increased to 8-12 years where it is a plea. He submitted that there is no provocation here.

I have considered the submissions, prisoner’s statement in allocutus and the principles or guidelines set out in State v Laura (NO. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98.

I am of the view that there is no provocation in the legal sense but there seemed to be in the non-legal sense. However, this does not give the right to the prisoner to stab to death the deceased in the manner she did. Section 35 of the Constitution does not allow another person to take the life of another except by order of a Court, etc. I do not think provocation in the non-legal sense can be stressed too far to cover situations such as this. To do so would mean that Court would encourage a practice by people who when knowing of a situation will not seek the assistance of the law and its avenues to solve problems but prolong it to an extend where it will explode such as in this case. People must learn to abide by the rule of law by taking their problems to the lawful authorities to solve them. In this regard, I agree with State Counsel that guidelines in Laura (No.2) are too low and courts must in their endeavour to stop such practices, impose severe penalties. This will deter and prevent other like minded people to stop what they may set out to do.

This offence carries a maximum of life sentence. I do not think it is warranted here in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. I have also considered section 19 of the Code and am of the view that a determinate term of year is warranted, and that it should be increased from 6 to between 8 to 12 years.

I am of the view that an appropriate sentence would be 8 to 10 years in the present circumstances.

I therefore sentence prisoner to 8 years. I deduct 3 months and 25 days she has been in custody. The prisoner will now serve 7 years, 8 months and 5 days.

Counsel for State: Public Prosecutor

Counsel for Accused: Public Solicitor