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

State v Amdeng [2020] PGNC 312; N8524 (17 August 2020)

N8524

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 593 OF 2020

THE STATE

-v-

AMOS AMDENG

Kiunga: Koeget, J
2020: 07^th, 17^th August

CRIMINAL LAW- Indictable offence – Unlawful Killing pursuant to section 302 of the Code – convicted on his admissions and guilty plea – He had no respect for human life when he poured petrol in the kitchen where the deceased and infant child were sitting by the fire – an imposition of severe sentence is warranted in the circumstances of the case.

Cases Cited:

Nil

Counsel:

D. Mark, for the State
B. Popeu, for the Accused

17^th August, 2020

1. KOEGET J: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with one count of Unlawful Killing pursuant to section 302 of the Criminal Code Act chapter 262.

FACTS

2. On the night of 1^st May 2019, between 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock the accused and the deceased were in their house at Kumbin village, Ningrum, in the North Fly District, Western Province of Papua New Guinea. An argument arose when the accused told the decease that he will take a new wife. During the argument the accused took a 5 litre petrol container from the kitchen and poured in all over the kitchen including the fire place. There was a fire burning in the kitchen and the deceased and the infant child were sitting inside the kitchen. The petrol spilled onto the fire and it spread quickly so the deceased escaped with the infant child through a hole in the kitchen wall. The petrol spilled onto the deceased and the infant child and both ran outside with fire burning over their bodies. The people in the community were attracted by the smoke and the deceased running with flames on her back. The fire was extinguished and the deceased suffered severe burns to her body. She was taken to the Kiunga General Hospital and admitted till 30^th of August 2019 when she died due to the severe burns and infects on the burns. The infant received burns but she is alive in the village.

ISSUE

3. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and so the issue for the court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence the court should impose upon him.

LAW

“Section 302 – Manslaughter.

A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute wilful murder, murder or infanticide is guilty of Manslaughter.

Penalty: subjection to section 19, imprisonment for life.”

PERSONAL PARTICULARS

4. The prisoner is 46 years of age and is a subsistence gardener. The deceased is his wife and both have a child from the marriage. In 1986 he completed grade 6 at Kolabum primary school in Ningrum and returned to live in the village as a subsistence gardener.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

5. The deceased died from severe burns from the fire. A life is lost and cannot be resurrected by payment of compensation or offer of apology. This is a case of “domestic violence” because both argued and the prisoner poured petrol in the kitchen that ignited and the deceased was set alight when petrol spilled onto the burning fire in the kitchen. The prisoner wanted to marry a new wife and so there was argument between him and the deceased.

MITIGATING FACTORS

6. The prisoner is a first-time offender. He had lived an unblemished life for 45 years prior to the commission of the offence. He co-operated with the police when he admitted the commission of the offence to the police during the record of interview. In court he pleaded guilty and saved valuable time. He has been in custody awaiting deposal of the case for one year and four months.

SENTENCE

7. The prisoner and the deceased were husband and wife. They argued because the prisoner wanted to take a new woman as his wife. So naturally the deceased felt rejected by the prisoner and argued with him. Such incident would not have happened if the prisoner did not engage in extra-marital affairs.

8. The prisoner knew the deceased was in the kitchen with their infant child and there was a fire burning in the kitchen so should not have poured the petrol in the kitchen. It could ignite and the fire would endanger the lives of the deceased and the infant child.

9. In this case, an innocent life is lost and cannot be resurrected by mere apology or payment of compensation. Such an offence is prevalent in the country.

10. The prisoner could have let the deceased and the child go and move on with life with the new wife. It is hard to imagine the pains the family suffer at the loss of their loved one. The offence occurred in a domestic setting and so is serious because it is committed easily by men against their wives or partners. He had no respect for the human life. She was treated as a worthless thing or a trash.

11. In my view, such factor is serious because he valued no human life so in the given circumstances of the case a severe sentence is to be imposed to deter other would be offenders in the future. So the prisoner is sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of fifteen (15) years in hard labour. The pre-trial custodial period of one year and four months is ordered to be deducted. He is to serve the balance of 13 years and 8 months at Ningrum jail.

Accordingly Ordered.
_______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor : Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor : Lawyer for the Accused