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

State v Kaream [2004] PGNC 146; N2610 (11 May 2004)

N2610

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 809 of 2004

THE STATE

v.

ISIDOR KAREAM

Kavieng: Sevua, J
10th & 11th May 2004

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty - Spleen killing – Accused struck deceased with dry coconut – Enlarged spleen – Offence very prevalent – Personal and public deterrence - Custodial sentence warranted – Sentence of 10 years.

Counsel:
L. Rangan for State
A. Turi for Accused

11th May 2004

SEVUA, J: You have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your wife on 28th December 2003, contrary to s. 302 of the Criminal Code.

You admitted the following facts. On 28th December 2003, at Samo Village in Lihir Island; you were with your family in your house when your wife, Kavanamur Bung, the deceased, started to look for a 20 toea coin in her bilum. She could not find it so she asked you and the children if anyone had taken the coin. No one owned up so she accused you of taking the coin. An argument ensued and you became angry and got a dry coconut and struck her on her left side of the upper abdomen. She fell down and died shortly thereafter. Death resulted from loss of blood due to the ruptured spleen.

This is the second case of manslaughter of a wife that the Court has dealt with during this circuit this month. And once again I echo what I said in the earlier case and that is, this death could have been avoided. It was a simple stupid reason that this death had come about. The quarrel over 20 toea coin is not worth the life that has been taken prematurely. What is 20t to a life? Is it worth dying for 20t?

Unfortunately, the reality of this is that you had killed your wife and you now stand before this Court to be punished for your crime. Manslaughter and especially, wife killing, is a very prevalent crime today. All killings including manslaughter involve a degree of violence and in this case the evidence is that you got a growing dry coconut and held it by the leaves then swung it on the upper left abdomen of the victim who fell down and died on the spot. Whilst the deceased had a substantially enlarged spleen as described by the doctor who carried out the post mortem, that fact alone does not exonerate your criminal culpability. There is far too much of this going on nationwide. People like you, who have no regard for the constitutional rights of a woman, are killing their wives over petty things. It must dawn on Papua New Guinean men now that they cannot continue to kill their wives. And it is time that men like you appreciated that, women in Papua New Guinea are also human beings who possess the same rights and equal opportunities under the Constitution as men.

The Court has considered the submissions that your counsel has advanced on your behalf. You are 35 years old and was married to the deceased and have five children who are very young. Their ages range from 3 years to 13 years. You have pleaded guilty and are a first offender. You initially surrendered to the police however, you were told to return to your village until an investigation was completed. You admitted the offence to police and co-operated with them in their investigation. You have shown remorse and your admissions and plea support that attitude. Your lawyer has also submitted that there was de facto provocation, which is provocation in the non-legal sense. It has been submitted that in sentencing, the Court should look at the circumstances in which the crime was committed together with the fact that the deceased had an enlarged spleen which accelerated her death. Counsel asked for a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.

I do no think that the Court can accept your submission that the enlarged spleen accelerated death. If I were to accept that, it would mean that your criminal culpability is being down graded, even to the extent that the blame is shifted to the deceased for having an enlarged spleen. In other words, it was implied that the Court should accept that the enlarged spleen caused the death. Whilst it is true in one sense that the cause of death was bleeding resulting from the ruptured enlarged spleen, you were the cause of the ruptured spleen and consequently death. Therefore in my view, it is quite mischievous to make this kind of submission. The fact of the matter is, if you did not strike the deceased with the coconut on her left side, her enlarged spleen would not have ruptured, so the blame for this death must rest squarely on your shoulder, and you are responsible for this death, not the ruptured spleen. As I alluded to, you cannot blame the deceased for having an enlarged spleen.

After considering all the submissions advanced both in mitigation and on sentence, it is the opinion of the Court that an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate in this case for two principal reasons. Firstly, wife killing is very prevalent. Secondly, this will act as both a personal and a public deterrence so that any person who kills his wife in similar fashion will know that he will be imprisoned. Your concern about your children is something that you should have considered before you decided to violently attack the deceased. That is not of any consequence to this Court. You assaulted the deceased causing her death so it is your responsibility to care for the children. Your remorse will not resurrect the deceased and really it is too late to be feeling sorry for your stupid action.

In all the circumstances, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour. The Court orders that your cash bail in the sum oh K500.00 be refunded to you.

Lawyer for State : Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for Accused : Public Solicitor