N5204

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 778 OF 2012

STATE

V

KEPO WANTAO
Prisoner

Goroka: Ipang AJ
2013: 04, 08 & 10 April

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Killing in a domestic setting – husband saw a man coming out and running away from his second wife's house in the early hours of the morning – man the prisoner suspected of having affairs with his second wife – prisoner went into his second wife's house and chopped his second wife on her head, legs and hands causing injuries resulting in her death.

Cases Cited

Manu v State (2005) SC 789
Goli Golu v State [1979] PNGLR 633
Ure Hane v State [1984] PNGLR 105
State v Lucy Moro & Dabre Bamire (1995) N1382
State v Margaret John (No. 2) N1342

Counsel

Mr. R. Kasito, for the Prisoner
Mr. K. Umpake, for the State 

DECISION ON SENTENCE
10th April, 2013

1.	IPANG, AJ: The prisoner pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him that on the 18th of June, 2012 at Anasina village in Obura-Wonenora District, he murdered Hahao Apo contrary to section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

BRIEF FACTS

2.	The prisoner had 2 wives. The second wife is the deceased. Both wives live in separate houses. On the 18th of June, 2012 at around 6.00am the prisoner left his first wife's house and walked over to the deceased's house. As the prisoner approached the house, he saw a man coming out of the house and ran away. On previous occasions, the prisoner had suspected the man of having affairs with the deceased. Prisoner went into the house and saw his wife alone in the house. Prisoner then attacked the deceased with a bush knife. Prisoner chopped her on the head, hands and legs which caused her injuries resulting in her death.

THE LAW

3.	The prisoner has been charged under section 300(1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act which provides;

"300. Murder
(1)	Subject to the succeeding provision of this code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder:-

(a)	If the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other persons; or
Penalty: subject to section 19, imprisonment for life".

4.	The sentencing practice is that the maximum penalty is always reserved for worst type of cases. See Goli Golu v State [1979] PNGLR 633; and Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105.

5.	In order to decide whether maximum should be applied, each circumstances of a case have to be taken into account. These are mitigating and aggravating factors, the antecedent and what was said in allocutus.

MITIGATING FACTORS

6.	I find the following to be the mitigating factors:

•	Pleaded guilty thus sawing courts' time and state's costs for putting a trial.
•	Provocation in a non legal sense
•	Voluntarily surrendered to police

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

7.	The following are the aggravating factors:

•	Use of offensive weapon, a bush knife
•	Multiple and serious bodily wounds

SUBMISSION BY DEFENCE

8.	The prisoner is 43 years from Anasina village, Obura-Wonenara District in the Eastern Highlands Province. He is married and had 2 wives. The firs wife is alive and the second wife is the deceased. Prisoner was educated up to grade 3 at Kassam Primary School in 1976. He lived a semi subsistence life. He was once employed as a labourer at Anco Coffee Factory. He worships with Evangelical Brotherhood Church (EBC) and is a first time offender.

9.	Kasito submitted that a compensation demand of K6, 000.00 has been paid. Five pigs worth between K700.00 and K1, 000.00 have been given to deceased's relatives. The amount of K2, 600.00 been given for funeral expenses. Total of K8,600.00

10.	Kasito submitted the circumstances of this case attract Category 2 of Manu Kovi v State (2005) SC 789. The Category 2 in Manu Kovi attracts sentence ranging from 16 to 20 years.

SUBMISSION BY STATE

11.	Mr. K. Umpake of counsel for the state was brief in his submission. He submitted that the prisoner pleaded guilty to a serious offence of murder. He also submitted that the state appreciated that the prisoner caught his wife in an adulterous affair. Also submitted was that the manner of killing was serious. There were multiple wounds inflicted on deceased's body with left arm completely chopped off. Umpake agree with Defence that the offence warrant a Category 2 of Manu Kovi case.

COURT'S ANALYSIS

12.	Killing in domestic setting has in the recent past has received special attention. See Antap Yala v The State Unreported Supreme Court Judgment (1996); State v Maria Er [1998] PNGLR 26 and State v Margaret John (No. 2) [1996] PNGLR 298.

13.	I have noted the circumstances leading up to the commission of the offence. The mitigating factors. However, the wounds inflicted on the deceased are barbaric, very cruel and inhuman. But you have admitted the offence and make it easier for the court and the state.

14.	I consider the range of between 16 – 20 years that's Category 2 in Manu Kovi's case. I consider 20 years would be appropriate. I minus the pre trial period of 9 months, 2 weeks and 3 days from 20 years, that will live the balance of 19 years, 2 months, 1 week and 4 days to serve. I suspend 2 years. Prisoner will serve 17 years 2 months, 1 week and 4 days.
_______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Paraka Lawyers: Lawyer for the Prisoner