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

State v Todokoi (No.1) [2015] PGNC 150; N6052 (14 August 2015)

N6052

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR.NO.902 OF 2014

THE STATE

V

HENRY TODOKOI
(NO 1)

Kavieng: Lenalia, J
2015: 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th & 14th August

CRIMINAL LAW – Charge – Wilful Murder – Plea of not guilty – Trial – Evidence – Charge – Elements of charge of wilful murder – Criminal Code s.299

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence on trial – Issue of who to believe – Prosecution evidence points to accused as responsible for the death of victim – Onus of proof as to whose evidence should be believed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Defence case – Total denial of travelling to West Coast of Kara- Nalik where the crime was committed

CRIMINAL LAW - Circumstantial evidence from two witnesses showing a day before the crime was committed, the accused travelled to Usil village where the offence was committed and on the early morning of the 21st September 2012, the accused was seen walking towards the east away from Lafu village.

Cases cited

Devlyn David-v-The State (2006) SC881
Garitau Bonu & Rossana Bonu v The State (1997) SC.528
John Beng-v-The State [1977] PNGLR 115
John Daminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318
Paulus Pawa-v-The State [1981] PNGLR 498
R v Namiropa Koinbondi [1969-1970] PNGLR 194
The State v Garitau Bonu & Rossana Bonu [1996] PNGLR 48
The State-v-Jacob Dugura Roy (2007) N3137
The State v Karuka Mari & Mido Maiga (13.8.1997) N1609
The State v Marianno Wani Simon & Alan Ao Koroka (1987) N600
The State-v-Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493

Counsel:

Mr. R. Luman, for State
Ms. M. Mumure, for Accused

14th August, 2015

1. LENALIA, J: The accused Henry Todokoi is charged with one count of wilful murder, a crime against s.299 of the Criminal Code. It is alleged that in the night between 20th and 21st day September 2012 the victim of this case, Paulo Lumusan from Usil village, of Kara-Nalik got his fishing gears, his torch light and got into his canoe and sailed out to the sea to go fishing. The allegations and charge before this court now is that, the accused sailed out in another canoe to where the victim was fishing and attacked the victim and killed him.

2. The brief facts showed that morning came the next day, and the victim had not come home. The victim's wife Elizabeth Mulusan had been concerned all throughout the night wondering where her husband was and went to the beach to look for the victim and found him lying dead on the sand. She cried out loudly and called for relatives to come and take the dead body to her house.

3. After the brief facts were stated to the accused and the charge was read the accused entered a plea of not guilty. Before the trial commenced, the following documents were tendered by consent:

➢ Ex. "1", statement by the wife of the victim, Elizabeth Mulusan.
➢ Ex. "1A", the English translation dated 20.9.2012.
➢ Ex. "2", statement by the interviewing officer Senior Constable Mitchel Wiau dated 20.6.2014.
➢ Ex. "3", report of death to the Coroner dated 21.9.2012.
➢ Ex. "4", Warrant to exhume the body after being buried some 7 months after burial made on 14.22014.
➢ Ex. "5", post mortem examination report by Dr. Wangnapi of 8.313.
➢ Ex. "6", record of interview-Pidgin version dated 20.6.2014.
➢ Ex. "6A" record of interview in English translation.
➢ Ex. "7", a statement by Wilson Melochon of Usil village dated 7.8.2015.

Prosecution Evidence

4. On the documents tendered the statements of wife of the victim Elizabeth Mulusan is corroborated by that of Malechon Wilson about how the body of late Paulo Mulusan was found on the beach on the morning of 21st September 2012. The wife of the deceased gave a full story of how the victim went to the sea on the night of 20th September 2012 to fish and she waited for him to return in vain and he never returned. This caused her to come down to the beach early the next day where she found Paulo lying dead on the beach. (See Exhibits "1", "1A" and "7").

5. The statement of the corroborator Senior Constable Mitchel Wiau corroborates the evidence by the interviewing officer Senior Constable John Tapi when they conducted the record of interview with the accused at the Kavieng C.I. D office. According to the oral evidence of the interviewing officer, the record of interview contains total denial. (See Ex. "3").

6. Exhibits "4" and "5" are the warrant to exhume the body of late Paulo Mulusan after some seven months and the other document and (Ex. "5") is the report of death to the Coroner. The record of interview is total denial marked Ex. "6" and "6A" for the Pidgin original and English translation.

7. On this trial, the prosecution called six (6) witnesses. Laru Misiel from Usil village, West Coast of Kara-Nalik was called as the first witness. His evidence was brief. Early in the morning of 21st September 2012, his son came from the beach and told him about the news that Paulo Mulusan had died and his body was lying on the beach. He walked down to the beach and found people crying and he held on to the victim's body.

8. They carried the body to the sea and had it washed. This witness said, he saw blood oozing from the victim's mouth. People helped him to take the body up to the deceased kitchen where he further examined it and shaved off the deceased's beard and found that there was a little wound on the victim's right side of his jaw. As well, the head of the victim was moving loosely to the left hand side. The witness said, there was suspicion as to what had caused the death of the victim.

9. In cross-examination, the witness was asked if he ever saw the deceased's body on the beach and was he ever present at the time and date of viewing the body. The witness said, he was physically present and he was the one who shaved the victim's moustache and beard to try and find out what was the cause of the death.

10. The second witness David Peter. He also comes from Usil village, West Coast of Fangalawa junction. After the death had occurred and the burial of the body, the family and relatives of late Paulo Mulusan asked David to travel to Luapul village to see the accused. The reason for this was because the accused had sent a message to late Mulusan's family that, if they wanted to know how the death of the victim occurred, they should come to him in Luapul village so he could tell them of those who had planned the killing.

11. According to this witness, he travelled to Luapul village on 24th November 2012. He met the accused and informed him that, the family of late Mulusan had sent him (witness) to find out from the accused about what the accused knew of the death of the victim. The witness asked the accused a direct question as to whether, he had killed late Paulo and if there were other people involved, he should tell him their names.

12. On his answer to the above series of questions, the accused told David that other people had used his name (accused) as a bombom (cover-up) for what other people had done. David asked the accused if he (accused) could reveal the names of those people who used him as a cover-up. He only gave one name as Lalas Manau. The accused told David that, the plan and program for the killing of late Paulo was done by Lalas. The witness further asked the accused as to what was the nature of the plan and program. He was asked if he could reveal the name of the person or persons who hit the victim's head and neck with either a paddle or piece of hard wood. The accused never answered. He asked him, who had pulled the body of late Paulo to the beach, the accused never answered.

13. In cross-examination, the witness was asked if he still recalls how many months after the burial of the victim when the body of late Paulo was exhumed for examination by the doctor. The witness said, it could be about two (2) months. Asked if even after two months, the people of Usil village had not found out who was responsible for the death of the victim. The witness was asked about why the accused had been blamed was just because of suspicions. The witness said it is true.

14. The third witness Nelson Bagavut an elderly person who comes from Kabil village located some few kilometers away from Konos District, in Central New Ireland. This witness evidence shows that the accused often went to Kabil village because he had a relative married to that village. Whenever the accused came to that village, he used to sleep in his (witness) boy-house or house-boy. Nelson's evidence is that, on unknown date and month in the year 2013, the accused was with them telling stories with his (witness) in-law. His evidence is that, the accused had met the in-law in C.I. S here in Kavieng and they knew each other. The in-law told the story of an inmate pouring a cup of tea on the accused's head.

15. When the accused heard this, he got furious and mad and openly asked if Nelson knew that he was a good person. The witness said, yes a good person. But the accused said, he himself is not that good. Nelson said, the accused then started to tell the story of how he (accused) killed Paulo Mulusan at Usil village, West Coast of Kara-Nalik. According to Nelson, the accused told them that, on the night of the death of the victim, he (accused) followed the victim by sailing up in another canoe to where the victim was fishing and hit the deceased's head with a timber which caused the victim to die. Then following his death, he (accused) pulled him up to the beach where he put his body down on the sand and left.

16. The defence vigorously cross-examined the witness. He was asked why the accused was in the boy-house of this witness and why was he in Kabil village. He was asked if he ever spoke to the accused when the accused used to come around. The witness said, he used to talk to him as he had nothing against the accused. He was asked if he knew Manuel Peter of Kabil village. The witness said, he knows him he (Manuel) is the cousin of the accused. He was asked how is it that, the accused from Luapul village, far from Kabil village in Central New Ireland would know him (witness). The witness said, because, the accused comes around now and then to Kabil village to see his uncle who is married to that village.

17. He was further questioned if the accused does not know him well. The witness said, true but he comes around to Kabil village now and then. He was asked if the story the witness told police about the accused killing the deceased is not true. The witness said, he himself did not know anything about the death of Paulo Mulusan. But that, the accused himself told the detailed story of how he killed the deceased out on the sea while fishing. He was asked if he recalled what year did the accused tell him the story about the killing. The witness said in was sometime in the year 2013

18. The fourth witness was Reverend Nelson Igu. He is the Circuit Minister of Bagail Circuit. His evidence relates to the date he went home to his village at Lafu village, West Coast. He had attended a workshop at Liga Bible School from 15th to 18 September 2012. That was during the Independence week and he was on his way to attend to pastoral activities at Panameko village on the West Coast. He got on a PMV vehicle from Liga which dropped him off at Fangalawa Junction. This junction is situated on the East Coast road along the Buminsky Highway between East Coast Kara-Nalik to West Coast of New Ireland Province.

19. As he waited, no PMV vehicle came so he took a walked back towards the direction to Kavieng. The idea was because there were many people on the junction, to catch the next available transport, he could easily catch one if he was alone. So he walked up a distance away from the junction and sat under the bread-fruit tree. He said, the accused also came around and they were there until a PMV truck came and picked them that is the accused and this witness. They went to the junction and because the vehicle was full, they proceeded to West Coast. He was dropped off at Panameko village and the accused told him that he was to travel to Usil village.

20. Asked in cross-examination if he knew the accused before he met him at the Fangalawa junction. The witness said, he knew him prior to meeting him on the afternoon of the date he met him. He was asked about the location of Lafu and Usil villages. The witness said, to go to Usil village, one would have to pass through Panameko village then from Usil to Namasalang village. He said, Panameko village is a distance away from Usil and Usil to Namasalang is not far. He was asked if he attended the course during the Independence Day celebrations. He said, the workshop commenced on 15th to 18th September 2013 and he was on his way home to his village on 19th of that month.

21. The fifth witness called was Igua Nason. This witness comes from Lafu village on the West Coast of Kara-Nalik. He said, he has resided in his village even prior to 2012. He gave an account of that he saw on the morning of 21st September 2012. He woke up between 5.30 am and 6 am and wanted to go to the bush to hunt and as he was walking up to the main road, he saw the accused walking up towards the east. He spoke briefly to him and walked for a distance of 30 meters then Nason walked off to his parent's house to take the dogs out for him to go hunting.

22. The witness said, he went hunting that morning and when he returned, he heard the news that, Paulo Mulusan had died. He also said, he heard stories that day a person by the name of Henry Todokoi hand killed the deceased. He then recalled seeing the accused walking away from the West direction of Usil and through Lafu village toward the East Coast direction to Belifu village. Asked in chief if the accused was carrying anything. Nason said, he carried a bag and was holding a piece of stick about a meter in length. Asked if the accused stood to talk to him, the witness said, the accused walked fast and he did not stand to talk to him.

23. The defence counsel asked this witness a series of questions about the identity of the accused. He was asked if before seeing the accused on the morning of 21.9.2012, he knew who the accused was and did he ever talk to him previously. The witness said, he knew him previously as he often go to Usil village and he often meet him and they talked to each other. Asked if the witness also lives in Usil village. The witness said, he lives there at Lafu, Usil and Belifu villages are neighbouring villages and they have customary ties with each other.

24. The last prosecution witness (the sixth) was Senior Constable John Tapi. He is attached to C.I.D division dealing with investigations of crimes. He conducted the record of interview with the accused. Asked in chief as to when did he commence investigating this offence. He said, the C.I.D received the report about the death in 2013 and on 21.3.2013, the investigation commenced. The witness said, the record of interview was conducted fairly and his corroborator was Senior Constable Mitchel Wiau.

Defence Evidence.

25. The accused was called upon to either make a statement from the dock, give evidence on oath or remain silent pursuant to s.572 (1) (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code. The accused elected to give evidence. The defence case is total denial. The accused said in evidence said, he is from Luapul village on the East Coast Road and the death occurred at Usil village on the West Coast. He said, he is not aware of the death and he did not kill the deceased. Asked in chief if he sometimes go to West Coast. He said, he goes but to Namasalng village only. Asked why or who does he go to visit. He said, he had got the other mother married to that village.

26. He was vigorously cross-examined as to why people in the village could have made up the allegations against him. He said, he did not know why. Asked about the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses particularly that of witness Nelson Bagavut, Nelson Igua and Igua Nason. In case of witness Nelson Bagavut, Mr. Luman asked if the accused used to go to Kabil village on Central New Ireland. The accused said, he occasionally goes to see a relative. Asked if he knows Mr. Bagavut. The witness said, he does know him.

27. Asked why would Nelson Bagavut make up false allegations against him. He said, he did not know. Asked as to how Nelson Bagavut could know about the story of what had happened on the sea at Usil village, West Coast of Kara-Nalik so many kilometers away from Kabil village on Central New Ireland. The accused said, he did not know and he never killed the deceased.

27. On the evidence by Reverend Nelson Igua, the accused was asked if he knows the Pastor. The witness said, he does not know him and he did not meet him on 19.9.2012. He said, he does not even know if that prosecution witness is a Minister. Asked why the Pastor would make up a false story just about travelling with him from Fangalawa junction to West Coast. The witness just looked here and there then to the court and to the lawyers and said, he was not there at that time.

28. In case of witness Igua Nason who said, he saw the accused on the early morning of 21.9.2012, the witness (accused) was asked if he knows Igua. The accused said, he does not know him and he never met him on that morning as he was not there. On the evidence of other remaining witness for the State, the accused denied committing the crime and said, his name was used by other people who put him up for the crime he is accused of.

Addresses on verdict

29. Mr. Mumure spoke to his five pages written submission. Counsel asked the Court to treat the evidence by all witnesses with great caution because, there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution. He urged the Court to be cautious in treating unsubstantiated evidence by witness particularly that of witness Nelson Bagavut. Counsel submitted that, by the year 2013, his client was already serving a District Court sentence of three (3) months for the offence of having in possession of sorcery instruments and there was no possibility of the accused telling the witness of what happened at Usil village.

30. Counsel argued that, the State has heavily relied on the alleged confession by the accused at the house-boy at Kabil village and the evidence placing the accused at the Fangalawa junction on the afternoon of 19th September 2012 were all a set up against the accused. Counsel argued that the confession was not in writing and the court should not accept it. Counsel filed copies of two case law authorities he based his argument on. I will refer to them a little later.

31. Mr. Luman, the lawyer appearing for the State discussed the evidence of all prosecution witnesses and that of the defence. Counsel submitted that, the issues before this court is whose evidence on this trial should the Court accept as truth and whose should be considered as not credible. Counsel asked the court to consider the evidence of witnesses like that of Reverend Nelson Igua and that of Nason Igua about seeing the accused on 19th and morning early hours of 21st September 2012.

32. Counsel submitted that if the defence wanted to file a Notice of Alibi, they could have done that if the accused relied on his evidence to show that, he was not on the scene of the killing and to show where the accused was during the time between 20th and 21st September 2012. Counsel asked the Court to find the accused guilty of the crime of wilful murder.

Application of Law

33. On this trial the court identifies a number of issues. First, there is no direct evidence as to the killing of late Paulo Mulusan. The evidence is circumstantial in nature. On this issue, it is settled law that when a case against an accused person substantially rests on circumstantial evidence, there should be an acquittal unless there is reasonable hypothesis from all evidence from which the guilt of an accused can or may be inferred: Paulus Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR.498, see also Garitau Bonu & Rossana Bonu v The State (1997) SC.528 and The State v Garitau Bonu & Rossana Bonu [1996] PNGLR 48. (See also The State v Marianno Wani Simon & Alan Ao Koroka (1987) N600).

34. A former Judge of this Court, Miles, J, in The State v Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493 at 495 quoted a passage from the common law case of Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 C.L.R 82 at 104 which passage concisely states the position in law on drawing of inferences from all evidence on a trial like the instant one. The court in that case said:

"When the case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are 'such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused': Peacock v The King [1911] HCA 66; (1911) 13 C.L.R 619 at p.634. To enable a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it is necessary not only that his guilt should be a rational inference but that it should be 'the only reasonable inference that the circumstances would enable them to draw': Plomp v. The Queen (1963) 110 C.L.R 324, at p.352; see also Thomas v The Queen [1960] HCA 2; (1960) 102 C.L.R 584 at pp.605-606. However 'an inference to be reasonable must rest upon something more than mere conjecture...' ".

35. In criminal practice, the standard of 'proof' is very high which is "proof beyond reasonable doubt". This requires that the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused person before he or she is convicted: Paulus Pawa-v-The State & The State v Tom Morris (supra), see also The State-v-Joseph Dugura Roy (2007) N3137. The above cases establish that where there are a number of competing inferences, it is a question of fact for the trial judge to decide which and what inferences should be drawn, which should be rejected, which are reasonable, which are mere conjunctures and which party should the court believe.

36. The second issue on this trial is that of identification. In cases where identification evidence is being considered like on the current trial, I am mindful of all inherent dangers and the need for caution before convicting on correctness of identification: John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, see also Biwa Geta v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 153.

37. The defence objection to the prosecution evidence of being identified first at Fangalawa junction on 19th September 2012 and two days later on 21st of that month is based on the argument that, the accused denied in his evidence that he was not on the places where witnesses Reverend Nelson Igua and Igua Nason were supposed to have seen the accused.

38. It is my view that, the places where the accused is supposed to have been identified were not crime scenes but the evidence of those two witnesses corroborate each other and which substantiates the evidence that, the accused travelled with Reverend Nelson from Fangalawa junction to West Coast on 19.9.2012. Then witness Igua Nason said he saw the accused in the morning of 21.9.2012 walked fast to the east coast direction.

39. The third issue is that of about the alleged confession made by the accused to witness Nelson Bagavut. The issue this witness's evidence is who had collaborated or conspired with Mr. Bagavut to make up a false allegation against the accused. If there was no one who conspired with that witness, why would Nelson Bagavut tell lies to this court? Remember, Nelson from Kabil village is so many kilometers away from Luapul village. How would or could he make up false allegations against the accused. According to the evidence of the accused and that of Nelson Bagavut, they have no grudges between them. The question I raise here is how Nelson knew about the story which is supposed to have been proceeded out of the accused mouth when he was upset about the story told by Mr. Bagavut's in-law of an inmate pouring tea on the accused's face.

40. Mr. Mumure raised an issue about the time, date and year where witness, Nelson Bagavut gave the estimate of when the accused is supposed to have told the story of him (accused) killing the victim. Counsel submitted that by year 2013, the accused was serving a three months sentence for a sorcery case and since then he had been in custody. Counsel submitted that, it is for that reason that, the court should not accept the evidence of witness Nelson Bagavut.

41. Having examined the evidence of all witnesses together with that of the defence the issue before this court now is, does the evidence adduced by the prosecution proved the allegations of evidence and facts as put by the prosecution which will or should lead to one reasonable conclusion, that the accused committed the offence charged: Paulus Pawa v The State (supra), see also Devlyn David v The State (2006) SC881 for such proposition. On the issue of identification evidence, I am mindful of all inherent dangers and the need for caution before convicting on correctness of identification: John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, see also Biwa Geta v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 153.

Finding of Facts

42. Going back to the three issues discussed above, the evidence is wholly circumstantial in nature. On the issue of identification, there is a link of evidence of where the accused was on 19th September 2012. He was seen by Reverend Nelson Igua at Fangalawa Road junction and they hoped on the PMV and Reverend Nelson and the accused travelled together to West Coast, Kara-Nalik.

Pastor Nelson got off the vehicle at Panameko village and the accused travelled on to the direction of Lafu and Usil villages.

43. There is no evidence to show where the accused was on 20th September that year. However, the next date, (21st), he was seen on the early morning about between 530am and 6am walking along the road at Lafu village towards the east coast direction. To complicate the issue, the defence called no alibi evidence to show where or who had been with the accused during those dates. As rightly submitted by Mr. Luman, an accused relying on the defence of alibi ought to call alibi witnesses to substantiate such defence: John Daminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318. The defence case was one of general denial. I find such defence does not hold water.

44. Mr. Mumure raised the issue about the evidence by Nelson Bagavut. Counsel cited the case of The State v Karuka Mari & Mido Maiga (13.8.1997) N1609 for the proposition that, in fairness to the accused, confessional statements or evidence should be recorded and it should be voluntary and the caution must be given and should be sufficiently corroborated. The case of R v Namiropa Koinbondi [1969-1970] PNGLR 194 was also cited by the defence in which it was held that, the court may only convict an accused on uncorroborated confession only after very close scrutiny and test of such evidence.

45. I differentiate circumstances of the instant trial particularly the evidence of Nelson Bagavut where the witness said the accused confessed to him that he killed the deceased Paulo Mulusan. The confession discussed in the above two authorities were confession done in presence of police officers in the course of investigations. It is a rule of law in criminal practice that before a confessional statement is obtained from an accused, the warnings in the Judges Rules and according to the Criminal Practice Rules must be given to an offender.

46. The confession by the accused was made to a villager and not the police investigating officer of this case. The issue before this court is, how could Nelson Bagavut from Kabil village in Central New Ireland so many kilometers away from Luapul village in Kara-Nalik near the town of Kavieng know about the story of how the accused is supposed to have killed the deceased. There is no evidence from the defendant to show why the witness Bagavut could have told lies against the accused. In my view there is no logic in the defence general denial.

47. On the issue of the timing of when the accused is alleged to have confessed to witness Bagavut, the offence occurred in 2012. That was some time ago. I would agree with the prosecution submission that, the accused may have confessed in 2014 or early in 2013. That was after he served his three months District Court sentence for having in possession of sorcery implements.

48. In criminal practice, the standard of 'proof' is very high which is "proof beyond reasonable doubt". This requires that the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused person before he or she is convicted: Paulus Pawa-v-The State [1981] PNGLR 498, The State v Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493, The State-v-Joseph Dugura Roy (2007) N3137.
The above cases establish that, where there are a number of competing inferences, it is a question of fact for the trial judge to decide which and what inferences should be drawn, which should be rejected, which are reasonable, which are mere conjunctures and which party should the court believe.

49. In my opinion, this is the case involving the issue of whose evidence is credible and whose should not be believed. In a case like the one on this trial, the court must weigh the evidence and strike the balance between what is logical and more probable and what is illogical. I observed witnesses in Court. All prosecution witnesses were truthful. I consider that the confession made by the accused to witness Nelson Bagavut was the truth of what the accused did to the victim. You know Henry, those who came to court to give evidence, all of them took oaths to tell the court the truth and they each in fact told the court the truth.

Evidence Linking Accused to the offence

50. On linking all the evidence, you took off from Fangalawa junction on the East Coast of Kara-Nalik on 19th September 2012. Reverend Nelson Bagavut talked to you when you were waiting for transport on the Fangalawa junction. You travelled with this witness to Panameko village on the West Coast of Kara-Nalik. He asked you where you were going to and you answered that you were to go to Usil village.

51. You slept somewhere and the victim went out to fish on the night of 20th of that month. The confession that you made to Mr. Bagavut was that, you followed the victim in another canoe to where he was fishing and when you saw him dived into the sea, you paddled right to where he was and as he came up from the sea, you hit his head with a piece of wood and he fell unconscious and died. Then after that, you pulled him up to the beach with his canoe and laid his body on the beach and ran away.

52. Linking your own confession to the evidence of witness Igua Nason, in the process of you running away from the scene of the killing, you were walking so fast when Nason saw you walking up quickly through the main road at Lafu village where he fully identified you as you were not a stranger to him.
The court is of the opinion that in your haste to run away from the scene of the killing trying to run away, Nason saw you and correctly identified you. There is medical evidence on the report to the Coroner Ref 1 – 1 dated 8th March 2013 on which, Dr. Wangnapi gave his opinion as to the probable cause of death of the deceased. This is what the doctor said:

"In my opinion, he may have died from internal bleeding from brain as seen from the time of his death because there were bleeding from both ears which may have been caused by external force to the brain tissue despite no fracture to the brain."

53. What the doctor gave as an opinion, confirms your confession to witness Bagavut at Kabil village, that you hit Paulo Mulusan on his head with a hard wood piece of stick. The hit you administered on the head of the victim killed him instantly. People who tell likes, God condemns them. When the children of Israel settled on the eastern side of Jordan, God gave instructions to them on the issue of ownership of land through His servant Moses saying:

"But if you will not do so, behold you have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out." Numbers 32:23.

54. Considering submissions by counsels on verdict and the status of law in relation to the issues of identification, circumstantial evidence and the confession that was made by the accused to Mr. Bagavut, I find that the accused was not truthful in his evidence. He did not call any alibi witnesses or jus witnesses to give some highlight of where the accused was at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed.

55. In fact, witness Davit Peter named one whom the accused gave his name to who is supposed to have known about the plan to kill late Paulo Mulusan. It was incumbent upon the accused to call evidence since the crime charged against him is very serious. Having considered all the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution case is more credible than that of the accused. For this reason, the court must find him guilty of the crime of wilful murder under s.299 of the Criminal Code. He is found guilty and convicted for the crime of wilful murder.
__________________________________________________________
The Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
The Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused