Luingi Yandasingi v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J
• Judgment Date: 06 December 1994
• Citation: [1995] PNGLR 268
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1995
• Judgement Number: SC474

Supreme Court: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J

Judgment Delivered: 6 December 1994

SC 474

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

CRA 3 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

LUINGI YANDASINGI

Appellant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

Mt Hagen: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J.

25 July, 6 December 1994

Appeal — Criminal law — Identification — Sentence — Imprisonment for life for wilful murder.

E. Batari with C. Inkisopo for the appellant

M. Unagui for the respondent

BY THE COURT. The appellant was charged with the wilful murder of one Kuri Si at Par Catholic Mission Station near Wabag on Sunday 28 December 1987.

The trial judge concluded that on the day the offence took place, the deceased Kuri Si and others had gone to Par Catholic Mission for a church service in the morning. They arrived early for the service about eight in the morning and were sitting down near the church. The appellant came up to them and talked to them. At this point there was no evidence of any conduct on the part of the appellant which could be interpreted as being hostile towards the deceased. The appellant walked up behind the deceased and suddenly attacked the deceased with an axe without any warning. The deceased died instantly. The trial judge found the appellant guilty of wilful murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

He appealed against conviction and severity of sentence.

The appeal against conviction is based on two grounds:

1. That the conviction was and is unsafe and unsatisfactory as there was no evidence that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased.

2. That the conviction was and is unsafe and unsatisfactory as the State's key witnesses were unsure of the identity of the deceased's murderer.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence of any motive for the killing. In examination in chief, the deceased's brother, Kairi Si suggested that in a previous fight, the deceased shot appellant's father with an arrow and as a result he became paralysed (see record page 18). In cross examination, Kairi further explained that compensation was paid to the appellant's father for the injury and that there was peace between the respective tribes (see record page 19). This witness suspects that the attack on the deceased was by the appellant because "deceased had...