The State v Kopiwan Pupuni

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Lenalia AJ
• Judgment Date: 20 April 1998
• Citation: (1998) N1709
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1998
• Judgement Number: N1709

National Court: Lenalia AJ

Judgment Delivered: 20 April 1998

N1709

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In The National Court of Justice]

CR NO 378 OF 1998

THE STATE

V

KOPIWAN PUPUNI

Wabag: LENALIA, AJ

1998: 16, 20 April

Criminal Law - Grievious bodily harm - Plea - Sentence - Criminal Code S. 319 - (Ch. 262)

Criminal Law - Grievous bodily harm - Sentence - Matters for consideration - Taking other offences into account on sentence after being convicted - Criminal Code S. 603 - May lead to increased sentence but not to exceed maximum penalty prescribed by law; Acting Public Prosecutor v Andrew Amona Yongga [1981] PNGLR 314, adopted and applied, see also The State v Aiton Ipai (1977) N1629

Criminal Law - Practice - Taking into account other offences - State Prosecutor’s consent - Accused must also consent - Admission of guilt in other outstanding charges - Certification on document filed under S. 603(40 of the Code.

The accused was convicted upon her plea on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to another person who was her co-wife. The State prosecutor consented to another charge of similar nature or closely allied cases be taken into account on sentence to which the accused also consented. The following judgement was delivered on sentence.

Cases Cited:

The following cases are referred to in the judgement.

The Acting Public Prosecutor v Andrew Amona Yongga [1981] PNGLR 314

The State v Aiton Ipai (1977) N1629

Counsels

P. Kumo, for the State

B. Aipe, for the Accused

SENTENCE

20 April, 1998

LENALIA, AJ: Kopiwan Pupuni, you pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to another female Alome Pupuni on 26 September, 1997 at Sakales village in the Tsap Valley area, Wapenamanda, Enga Province. The State says that this is an offence contrary to S. 319 of the Criminal Code.

The agreed facts are contained in the affidavit evidence of witnesses who gave statements to the investigating officer in the instant case. The State alleges that between 8 and 9 am on the relevant date, the victims Marry Pupuni and her daughter Julie Misakali were around in their house together with a son of the first victim and some of their in laws. Someone called to the first victim to come over to where the community was gathering for the purposes of Village Courts hearing or something of that nature and where the problem of the victim burning the accused’s house was to be resolved. The victim left together with her little daughter to the house of a person by name Eyakali who is a member of the “Sindaon Gut Committee”. Whilst there the victim asked Eyakali to come with them to where the members of the community were waiting. However due to Eyakali being very sick he explained to the victim that he could not go with them because he was sick.

The victim and her daughter were asked to eat together with the family of their Committee member so they sat down to eat. While the victims and Eyakali’s family were eating the accused approached the two victims lifted up her bush knife and struck at the victim’s daughter on her left leg. Upon seeing this all occupants of the house were all shocked and while the victim tried to stand up the accused struck her with the knife on the neck. This blow was followed by two other blows over the victim’s head and another two on her hands. The victims were admitted to the Sopas Adventist Hospital. The medical report prepared by Dr. Munoz at the aforesaid hospital indicate that victim Mary suffered from the following multiple wounds:--

· a big laceration on the left “parietae”

· there was a fracture on the skull

· there was laceration and fracture of left ‘chevicle”

· laceration to the left elbow

· laceration to the right hand

Victim Mary had to be put to the operating theatre where her wounds were sutured. She was admitted on the date on which she was injured and was discharged on 10 October, 1997.

In your allocutus, you told the Court that you did not intend to commit this offence but the reason why you committed this offence was because the victim had earlier burnt your house down supposedly used by some eight (8) persons. You also told the Court that the victim was supposed to have provoked you by saying to you “You are suffering because I burnt your house down”. You further said this had made you angry so as the result you committed the offence for which you are now charged. You also requested leniency from the Court.

On your background, your antecedents show you are a villager. Your lawyer submitted that you had seven (7) brothers in the family without any sisters. You and the victim are married to the same husband. In mitigation the defence counsel submitted that you were angered by the co-wife burning your house down so you committed this offence. It was also submitted on your behalf that, in the course of the struggle you were also cut twice and that this was a case of “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth”. Mr Aipe further submitted that the victim suffered physically, the accused lost worldly possession. It was further submitted that you have already paid compensation of K1,800.00 in cash and thirty-eight (38) life pigs. It is my view that customarily it is an obligation to pay some form of compensation because this Court cannot see any other means whereby you could be reconciled to the co-wife seeing you both share the same husband. Certainly by authority of the case of Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane [1980] PNGLR 410 and The State v Emp Mek [1993] PNGLR 330 compensation should be taken into consideration when...