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

State v Barambi [2017] PGNC 234; N6900 (15 August 2017)

N6900

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 1321of 2014

THE STATE

V

CHRIS BARAMBI

Kimbe: Miviri AJ
2017: 15^th August

CRIMINAL LAW- Practise & Procedure-Trial- Wilful Murder Section 299 Criminal Code Act – tender of medical certificate of death, affidavit of Doctor conducting & Post Mortem-business records section 61 Evidence Act-author not before court-Acting medical director custodian of records before court-whether business records section 61-admit evidence-records in the course of duties of hospital- business of the hospital care-weight to be given.

CRIMINAL LAW- PRACTISE & PROCEDURE-TRIAL- Wilful Murder section 299 CCA – evidence of whom to believe- mother and son neighbours witness-defendant two versions-which is the truth-credibility state & defence- which version more probable of belief

CRIMINAL LAW - Practise & Procedure- intent to kill proved- guilty of murder

CRIMINAL LAW - Practise & Procedure- evidence-dying declaration section 20 Evidence Act-Judicial arm must assist the Legislative & Executive arm of government where appropriate-wide definition business record section 61-Post Mortem & Medical certificate of death - Evidence Act-proof of facts within-S 61 process of law admittance of evidence-no breach-

Facts

Wife served rice for the husband without any tin fish. He got angry and beat her with a baton intending to kill her inflicting internal injuries from which she died.

Held

The husband had assaulted and inflicted the injuries internally causing the death of the wife. Intent to kill was established beyond all reasonable doubt. Guilty of wilful murder.

Cases cited:

Bulen v The State [1990] PNGLR 43

David Kandakason v The State [1998] SC558

Kitawal v State [2007] SC927

Kerua v The State [1981] PNGLR 357

Palili v The State [2006] SC848

State v John [1992] N1068

Counsel:
D .Kuvi, for the State

B. Popeu, for the Defendants

VERDICT

15^th September, 2017

1. MIVIRI AJ: This is the verdict of a husband who killed his wife because he had no tin fish to eat with the rice he cooked.
   

Short facts

2. Chris Barambi was a security guard with Guard dog Security. On the 1^st June 2014 between 7.00pm and 8.00pm he was getting ready to go to work. And had boiled rice which he asked his wife Delilah Walis also known as Denila Toridon to serve. She did without any tin fish. He questioned her as to why there was no tin fish which made him angry and he started to hit her with a baton on her neck down to her back. He also used an oil palm sickle to cut her face. A neighbour with her son were drawn by what he was doing came over and tried to stop him to no avail. She got her son to buy a tin fish and give it to him but he refused. He took her into their house where she died from the injuries. He had intended to kill her.
   
3. The state charged him under Section 299 Criminal Code Act of Wilful Murder which reads as:

(1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some person, is guilty of wilful murder.

(2) A person who commits wilful murder shall be liable to be sentenced to death.

4. The elements of the offence are:

(1) a person

(2) unlawful

(3) kills another person

(4) intending to cause the death

Issue on trial

5. The issues on trial are:
   
   • Whether or not the defendant had killed the deceased?
   • If he did kill her, whether or not he intended to cause her death?
   • Whether the medical affidavit of Doctor conducting post mortem is business records within section 61 of the Evidence Act?
   • If so whether it is admissible?
   • And if admissible what is the weight to be given in view of the fact that the custodian gave evidence of having it in his possession, not the deponent?

State case

(a) Evidence by consent

6. In its endeavour to prove its case the state tendered into evidence the record of interview of Chris Barambi conducted on Friday the 1^st August 2014 in Pidgin exhibit S1 with its English translation Exhibit S2.
   
7. The material excerpts from it were, he stated that he was employed as a static guard with guard dog security services. That on that day 1^st June 2014 at about 7.00 pm and 7.30 pm he was in the house. And had cooked rice but there was no tinned fish, so had asked the deceased Denila Toridon for it. He denied assaulting her. And denied further that the deceased had uttered, “Daddy inap nau ya, mi ino save long tin pis ya, bai mi dai nau ya, daddy inap nau”. Interpreted, that is enough daddy I do not know about the tin fish, I am going to die, that is enough daddy”. He agreed that Maria had bought a tinned fish and had given it to him. But explained that he would not eat what another person had bought. He denied that Maria had begged him to stop assaulting Denila but agreed that she had called him for the tinned fish. He agreed that he had hit his pocket of his trousers and said to Maria, I have money if I want to buy tinned fish I will. Take your tinned fish back. Yesterday only was my fortnight. He denied that Maria did not stop him from assaulting Denila Toridon. That she lied. He said he had never hit the deceased in the way that Maria had described that she had lied. Including taking the rice saucepan and eating three spoons from it and then emptying out the rice onto the ground. Then scooping it up with both hands and then putting on the body of Denila Toridon. And the deceased calling out for him to stop. He also denied that he never ever put burning firewood lit on the body of the deceased. And that the deceased never uttered, “daddy inap nau, mi idai nau ya, inap nau,” interpreted, that is enough daddy, I am dying now, that’s enough”. He further denied that Maria Godfrey never told him that he was assaulting Jesus that she was badly injured. He denied that he never attempted to wake up Denila with the words get up get up get up in response Denila said, Oh Daddy It’s hard for me to get up and walk. He also denied that he never assisted up Denila and take her into the house. He agreed that he did tell the deceased that because of you there was no tinned fish and I did not eat rice. And denied that he told deceased to look for her own food after that day onwards. Also maintained that he had no knife and that he never cut the deceased mouth and face including stabbing her on the vaginal area where she received serious injuries. He explained that that mark on the vaginal area was when she was taken to the beach at KBSA by some other persons who had inflicted that injury on her. When referred to the report from the hospital that the deceased had received extensive injuries on her neck ribs her vagina and died as a result he replied that he was not aware. He agreed she was a human being but he never killed her using a baton and a hook knife. That he surrendered to Police upon seeing that she had died. Acknowledging that it was against the law to kill another human being. He refused to sign the record of interview.
   
8. These were the material excerpts of the record of interview conducted 1^st August 2014 just over a month from the death of the deceased. Notable also the record of interview was suspended by the arresting officer in line with section 42 (2) of the Constitution to allow the defendant to speak with a lawyer on the 1^st August to 11^th August 2014 but the defendant had not seen a lawyer so was further suspended to Friday the 19^th September 2014 but still the defendant had not seen a lawyer. When asked there he said it was ok to continue with the record of interview there that he would see a lawyer after it. Police must be commended here as they complied with the Constitution and gave every opportunity to the defendant on a very serious matter to be able to properly lawfully put his defence there and then. It was fresh in the mind of the defendant and naturally would have been on his lips as to what eventuated compared with the trial which was three years since. And may have been distorted with the lapse of time in minute parts but material and outstanding facts where not so easy to be withered with time.
   
9. What was established by the record of interview was that:
   
   • (a) On the 1^st June 2014 Denila Toridon was the wife of Chris Barambi alive and that both lived at section 11 Kimbe West New Britain. That both were in the house together at about 7.00 to 7.30 pm. The defendant had cooked rice which was served by the deceased for the accused without any tinned fish as he was going to work that night as a security guard with Guard Dog Security services. He refused to eat the rice without any tinned fish and demanded for the deceased to find tinned fish. She did not provide it but Maria Godfrey a neighbour did provide that tinned fish which was refused by the defendant stating that he had money and that it was his fortnight and he could afford it.
     
   • (b) This fact is also established by this evidence that Maria Godfrey was there where the defendant and the deceased were because she got her son Aravande Godfrey to go and purchase and bring a tinned fish which was given to the defendant who refused to take it because he had money and it was his fortnight and he could provide it himself. It also proves the conversation between the accused and the witnesses.
     
   • (c) It is also by the record of interview that Denila Toridon was alive up to the point where there was no tinned fish for the rice on that night and dead thereafter and defendant voluntarily surrendered to police because of that fact. It is important to set out the pidgin excerpts of this fact, “Yu lukim olsem Denila Toridon idai na yu yet surrender ikam long police Station. Bai yu tok wanem? Ans: Ems tret”, you saw that Denila Toridon had died and of your own volition you surrendered to Police? Yes that’s right”.
     
   • (d) What is established and undisputed by this fact is that Chris Barambi saw that Denila Toridon had died and so of his own volition he surrendered to Police. And the surrender is regarding the death of Denila Toridon which occurred on the 1^st June 2014. Because in the record of interview the events that are questioned in there are of the 1^st June 2014 not of any other day or dates. So by this fact it is established that Denila Toridon was alive up to the 1^st June 2014 and thereafter she was dead and because of that reason the defendant voluntarily surrendered to Police. I make this as a finding of fact.
     
   • (e) What is also established as a fact by the record of interview conducted a month after the death of Denila Toridon for which Chris Barambi surrendered to Police is that he has not given any explanation as to the death of Denila Toridon there and then, even though it is a month after events are fresh there. Even when Police gave him an opportunity firstly on the 1^st to the 11^th August 2014 when the record of interview was suspended for him to engage or consult a lawyer he still did not disclose any other explanation as to the reason as to how Denila Toridon died. Again when further suspension was given from 11^th August to 19^th September 2014 he still did not have any explanation to police as to how Denila Toridon had died and why he had surrendered after her death.
     
   • (f) This is not to say that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his innocence, rather common sense and logic establishes that one does not wait out grave consequences in law without setting out or insisting upon the truth at the first given opportunity here when events are unfolding after the death. No evidence has been led as to abnormality of the accused. He is a normal sane person. And he has accepted that Denila Toridon has died and he has surrendered because of that fact to the police, yet he has not offered any explanation for her death. He is also the last person who was with her immediately before she died.
     

Maria Godfrey oral evidence

10. Added to this is the evidence of Maria Godfrey first prosecution witness who is educated to grade 8 married with 8 children aged 39 years old resides at section 11 bush camp and was living there in 2014 with her husband and children. The 1^st June 2014 was a Sunday between7.00pm and 8.00pm were they were having dinner as a family. Chris Barambi was beating his wife and we heard it so ran to his house. He was fighting her over tinned fish that he wanted to eat with his rice. I saw it so sent my eldest son Aravande Godfrey who purchased the tinned fish came back and I handed it to the accused who refused threw it down hit the pocket of his trousers and said I got money here I will not take your tinned fish. He continued to assault her with the baton and got the sickle and cut her head.
    
11. I told him to stop assaulting her but he still continued with the baton of the security on the neck down to her back. He also got a sickle and cut the head of the wife with it. Then he threw the pot of rice which was on the fire over spilling the rice out on the ground. He scooped up the hot rice with his two hands and threw it upon her who was facing downwards and so it landed on her back. Then he got a burning coconut frond from the fire and burnt her skin with it. He told her to get up and to walk into the house she replied, “daddy inap nau ya mi dai ya”. I told Chris that is enough today is Sunday you are assaulting Jesus, “inap nau ya today em Sunday ya yu paitim Jesus”. He came and told his wife to go inside the house she said,” Daddy mi hard long kirap mi kisim bikpela bagarap, then he came and lifted her up and supported her into the house and I went back to the house. When he hit her with the baton he threw it hard upon her he is a man and is strong. This was outside the house and I was 5 meters from where he was assaulting her. When he cut her with the sickle I saw blood on her face. He said because of the tinned fish you will sleep in the house without eating. Next morning my son came and said Chris surrendered as Delina Toridan was dead and in the small house. The Police and ambulance went up and picked her from there.
    
12. I am related to him in that I am from Maprik married to Wosera and Chris Barambi is grandfather to my husband. I have literally grown up in Bush camp because I lived there and went to school from there. I was educated up to grade 8 there and got married there.
    
13. Maria Godfrey’s presence at the scene is undisputed as the accused in the record of interview acknowledges the presence of this witness there at the scene at the relevant time of the allegations. Interestingly, the accused has left out the parts of the evidence incriminating him in the allegation.
    

Aravande Godfrey

14. The second prosecution witness is Aravande Godfrey 21 year old son of Maria Godfrey who gave evidence that he was leaving with his parents in 2014 at section 11 Bush camp. On Sunday 1^st June 2014 between 7.00pm and 8.00pm he was at home with his parents. Chris Barambi assaulted his wife because of tinned fish and gave her serious injuries. I heard them fighting and ran across to the accused’s house and saw it. Our house is about 10 to 20 meters from his house. Chris was using the baton that guard dog security men use to assault his wife with. I went there with my mother. There my mother gave me K3.00 to get tinned fish, I came back and gave to Chris to eat with the rice. He refused the tinned fish poured out the rice onto the ground used his hands to scoop up the rice and threw onto Denila Toridon. He also got firewood from the fire and burnt the body of his wife with it.
    
15. Again the presence of this witness at the scene is admitted too by the accused in the record of interview.
    

Credibility who to believe

16. I observed Maria Godfrey give evidence. She is an intelligent witness she can understand English having been educated to grade 8 and was eager to give her evidence. She wasn’t hesitant in giving her evidence. She was fluent in her evidence. She gave a logical and chronological account of what she observed. She was not shaken in cross examination. She was giving evidence against the grandfather to her husband. Her observation was made from there as the events unfolded before her. And this is evident when she said, I helped her and supported her into the house and went back. She is not mistaken in her evidence nor is there any motive for her evidence. I find her to be a witness of truth as it unfolded before her. I believe her evidence in comparison to that of the defendant. I make and hold similar in respect of the son Aravande Godfrey. In the record of interview the defendant admits both their presence there at the scene. Both their evidence are direct observations by themselves at the scene as events unfolded. Both are therefore witnesses of the truth as it unfolded. Unlike the defendant they have not tailored their evidence to suit an outcome in their favour. He on the other hand has left out the incriminating excerpts and elected only to put the clean before the court. He has a motive for doing so which is to avoid why he surrendered to the police. The law has been clearly stated in David Kandakason v The State [1998] SC558 where the Supreme Court said that where the witness is shown to have made previous statements inconsistent with the evidence given by that witness at the trial, the court must regard and treat that evidence unreliable, and similarly disregard that previous statement, whether sworn or unsworn, as it does not constitute evidence upon which the judge can act. In other words, both the sworn testimony of the witness and his statement given out of court are discredited and both are no longer reliable evidence. Palili v The State [2006] SC848
    
17. The defendant surrendered to police the next morning after the 1^st June 2014 because his wife had died. He denied what the two witnesses had given in their evidence in particular how he assaulted the deceased and what she uttered. He has not given the version in court that she had bumped herself into furniture within and also fell downhill bumping into bricks he had stacked to build a house there. Which was the cause of her internal injuries that led to her death. There is no ring of truth in what he asserts he has not told police upon surrender how she died and what may have caused it. In court he confessed he had lied to the Police and that the truth is the story now in court. He has two versions which are both inconsistent and incredible. There is no logic and common sense to his evidence it is incredible and not worthy of belief that a fully grown adult woman healthy not blind to bump as he described one after the other continuously and to sustain the injuries she did. Why surrender if she had caused her own demise? His conduct is consistent with one who accepts responsibility for the wrong. For these reasons I reject his evidence totally and accept the evidence of the two state witnesses Maria Godfrey and her son Aravande Godfrey as to how Denila Toridon was assaulted by him and met her death.
    

Findings of Fact

18. Accordingly, I find as a fact that on the 1^st June 2014 Sunday between7.00pm and 8.00pm Chris Barambi was beating his wife over the fact that there was no tinned fish to serve with the rice that he had cooked. Maria Godfrey a neighbour and relative saw it and ran across accompanied by her son Aravande Godfrey. She tried to help and sent her son with some money to buy the tinned fish and then to give him that tinned fish. He refused it and threw it down hitting his pocket and saying I got money I don’t need your tinned fish. He continued to assault her with the baton and got the sickle and cut her head. Maria Godfrey told him to stop assaulting her but he persisted with the baton on the neck down to her back. Then he got a sickle and cut her head with it. Then he threw the pot of rice which was on the fire over spilling the rice out to the ground, he scooped up the hot rice with his two hands and threw it upon his wife Denila Toridon who was facing downwards and so it landed on her back. Then he got a burning coconut frond from the fire and burnt her skin with it. He told her to get up and to walk into the house she replied, “daddy inap nau ya mi dai ya”. I told Chris that is enough today is Sunday you are assaulting Jesus, “inap nau ya today em Sunday ya yu paitim Jesus”. He came and told his wife to go inside the house she said,” Daddy mi hard long kirap mi kisim bikpela bagaram, then he came and lifted her up and supported her into the house and I went back to the house. He hit her hard with the baton He continued to assault her with the baton and got the sickle and cut her head. He said because of the tinned fish you will sleep in the house without eating. Next morning he surrendered as Delina Toridan was dead and in the small house. The Police and ambulance went up and picked her from there.
    

Intent to Kill

19. These findings of fact establish that there is very strong evidence of intent to kill on the part of the accused. It is evident from the verbal exchanges set out above by the deceased in the presence of the witnesses that she is indeed seriously injured and cannot walk on her own even into the house. It can be inferred that there is intent to kill. Reliance on his conduct and the amount of violence exerted would be enough here to seal that he intended to kill her. Kitawal v State [2007] PGSC 44; SC927 (22 February 2007). But what she professes is dying declaration within the meaning of Section 20 of the Evidence Act 1975:

Section 20. DYING DECLARATIONS. Evidence Act 1975

A statement made orally by a person before his death relating to the circumstances resulting in his death is admissible in any legal proceedings if–

(a) at the time when the person made the statement he believed, or may be reasonably supposed by the court to have believed, that his death was imminent, whether or not–

• (i) he entertained at that time any hope of recovery; or
  
• (ii) he thought that legal proceedings might eventuate; and
  

(b) at the time when the person made the statement he would have been a competent witness in the legal proceedings; and

(c) the person making the statement could, if he had not died, have given direct oral evidence in the proceedings of the matter in the statement.

20. And that is what it is dying declaration by the deceased Delilah Chris Walis alias Denila Toridon that the accused had grievously injured her “Daddy inap nau ya, mi ino save long tin pis ya, bai mi dai nau ya, daddy inap nau”. Interpreted, that is enough daddy I do not know about the tin fish, I am going to die, that is enough daddy”. Followed by “daddy inap nau ya mi dai ya” interpreted, “daddy that’s enough Im dying” and,” Daddy mi hard long kirap mi kisim bikpela bagaram,” interpreted, “daddy it’s hard to get up I’ve received very serious injuries”. She knew that her death was imminent. She did not entertain any hope of recovery. That legal proceeding might eventuate. Had she lived she would have been a competent witness in any proceedings brought. And would have given direct oral evidence in the matter in court. Bulen, The State v [1990] PNGLR 43 (16 January 1990). What is established by this evidence is that the deceased was on the verge of death from the injuries as a result of the beatings at the hands of the accused. She conceived that she was in no state to survive if the accused continued as he did, she begged him to desist and to spare her life. He is a sane person in good health and what was uttered by the deceased was next to him their bodies touching as he assaulted. He no doubt heard her plea to stop and desist the assaults, because she was dying. He now had the knowledge that she was dying and he persisted till she was no more. She had succumbed to the beating and had died. He heard her not to kill her he persisted to kill her. I find on the basis of this evidence that accused had intended to kill the deceased and carried out that intent until he fulfilled with her lifeless body left and discarded in their shack and he surrendered to Police next day 2^nd June 2014.
    
21. The dead body was picked up from the house by ambulance accompanied by police the next day 2^nd June 2014. A Post Mortem Report and the medical certificate of death were prepared. Defence counsel objected to the tender arguing that both documents together with the affidavit of the doctor who conducted could not be tendered unless and until he was produced. The State resorted to and relied on section 61 BUSINESS RECORDS. Evidence Act which provides:

“(1) In this section, “writing” includes a photographic reproduction or photostatic reproduction of a document.

(2) Subject to Subsection (3), a writing purporting to be a memorandum or record of an act, matter or event is admissible in evidence in a court as proof of the facts stated in it if it appears to the court that–

(a) the memorandum or record was made in the regular course of a business at or about the time of the doing or occurrence of the act, matter or event; and

(b) the source of information, and the method and time of the preparation of the memorandum or record, were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.

(3) Subsection (2) does not require a court to admit in evidence a writing if it appears to the court that the interests of justice would not be served by its admission.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a court, in considering whether a writing should be admitted in evidence, shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including–

(a) the source from which the writing is produced; and

(b) the circumstances of its receipt and custody by the person producing it or by any person from whom it has been obtained for the purpose of producing it in evidence.

(5) In the exercise of the discretion of a court under this section, the court is not obliged to receive formal testimony but may inform itself in any way that it thinks fit and in particular by the affidavit, oath, affirmation or certificate of a person who professes to have knowledge of any of the matters to which the writing relates or of the circumstances relating to its preparation.

Arguing that the affidavit of Doctor Jack Marcus attaching the Post Mortem Report and the medical certificate of death be tendered as business records relying on the case of Kerua v The State [1981] PNGLR 357. Which considered section 30 (1) now the present section 61 Evidence Act. It interpreted that the term “business” is to be interpreted in its extended sense and covers inter alia, public administration. Accordingly, a hospital record can be a business record for the purposes of the section. A business record is not however admissible unless there is proof: (a) of how the documents are made in accordance with section 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the trustworthiness of the source of information and the method of preparation. This makes sense it is not just any other document but a document that has come into being or born out of the business of the hospital.

22. It is important to grasp what the section means when the word,” memorandum” is used in the context of section 61. The Collins English Dictionary defines, “memorandum, as a written report that is prepared for a person or committee in order to provide them with information about a particular matter. A written statement, record, or communication such as within an office”. In the context here, post mortem examination also known as an autopsy is the examination of a body after death. The aim is to determine the cause of death. Post mortems provide useful information about how, when and why someone died, and they enable pathologists to obtain a better understanding of how disease spread. Learning more about illnesses and medical conditions benefits patients too, because it means they’ll receive more effective treatment in the future. And the same would extend to the Medical Certificate of Death.
    
23. And that it is trust worthy of its source. Kimbe General Hospital is a publicly administered hospital and has a public official Director or Acting director of medical services Doctor Lawrence Warangi in our case on the 30^th November 2014. Who filed an affidavit dated the 15^th August 2017 Exhibit S3. As at the date of the affidavit he is a medical officer currently Senior Surgeon registered under the Medical Registration Act 1980 holding the qualification MBBS (UPNG) 1979, and Masters in Surgery (UPNG)-1988. Like Kerua’s case, he was the custodian of the medical records which were the report on post mortem examination Exhibit S5, medical certificate of death Exhibit S4, affidavits deposed by Doctors Pathologist as here of Doctor Jack Markus Exhibit S5A. His evidence on oath is trust worthy.
    
24. He says he also does clinical duties and post mortem duties and has been doing that for 39 years now. He is familiar as to how records are kept in the hospital. Post mortem is done and then a medical certificate of death is issued. Police Criminal investigations collect but the hospital also keeps its records too. After all it is record that originates from the hospital from the office of the director of medical services. Medical certificate of death Exhibit S4 was done by Doctor Jack Marcus, I was director medical services. He has since transferred to Boram General Hospital. Post Mortem report contains the necessary information in such a report Exhibit S5 done by Doctor Jack Marcus. And all documents originate from Kimbe General Hospital. And because he is the custodian of the records he is the proper person to bring those records before the court. It is his records and he is not breaching the law to bring them before the court. And they all relate to the death of one Delilah Chris Walis name which has been acknowledged as his surname by the accused confirming that the deceased is none other than Delilah Walis also known as Denila Toridon. The last known place of residence is section 11 Kimbe West New Britain which is also where the defendant is resident together with the two state witnesses. The events all testify to are of the 1^st June 2014 which is also the same date in the report on post mortem examination exhibit S5 and also the medical certificate of death Exhibit S4. In accordance with Kerua (supra) Exhibit S4 and S5 are business records within the ambit of section 61 of the Evidence Act. Because both are record made in the regular course of a business of the hospital, post mortem being a normal course of business in the hospital. Including the issue of a certificate of death pertaining to it. And the information contained is trust worthy having come from the office of the Director of Medical services of that hospital confirmed by the sworn evidence of Doctor Lawrence Warangi who was the then acting director. I observed him give evidence and hold him a very credible witness and that the records are official hospital records under his care when he was then holding office as the acting director of medical services. I have received his formal sworn testimony in court and do not doubt the veracity of his evidence. He is a very experienced and very well qualified doctor and accordingly memorandum or record of an act, matter or event is admissible in evidence in a court as proof of the facts stated in it, which is what the Post Mortem Report and the Medical certificate of death are in respect of the deceased Delilah Walis also known as Denila Toridon.
    
25. Section 61 is a process of law under the Evidence Act and it is by that process that both this evidence have come into court. Both are therefore lawfully before and in court and will be considered with all other evidence as to their veracity and weight to be given in the final assessment of all. Section 61 proofs what is on the face of the evidence now before me. The law of evidence was not made in academia but to serve the interest of justice not without. “In my respectful view, it is the duty of the courts to develop the principles of the underlying law so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament when it passed Section 8 into Law. By doing so the Courts would give effect to the wishes and aspirations of the majority of our people to control or reduce crime. It is also by wide construction of the legal provisions when the need arises would the Judicial Arm of Government assist the Legislative and Executive Arms of Government in their effort to control criminal activities such as armed robberies in this country and make co-offenders realise that it dose not pay to form gangs and commit serious crimes together.” State v John [1992] PGNC 50; N1068 (22 April 1992)
    
26. That is what I have done here rather than give a restrictive definition and deny justice. It will serve the paramount interest of justice to give a wide definition to address the ever prevalent cases of wives dying at the hands of their husbands and partners and all other defiance of law as set out by State v John (supra). The Judicial arm will assist Legislative and the Executive arm of Government always sow the seed of the protection of the law and the rule of law.
    
27. The evidence depicted by the post mortem report and the medical certificate of death of Delilah Chris Walis alias Denila Toridon, on 11^th June 2014 States death occurred 10 days meaning that the deceased died on the 1^stJune 2014. The time that is on the Post Mortem is 3.00pm which is not the correct time of death. Because in the record of interview by the accused and the evidence of Maria Godfrey and Aravande Godfrey, the deceased was alive between 7.00pm and 8.00pm 1^st June 2014. So the time of death is from the accused and the witnesses and not from the post mortem report and the medical certificate of death. Because it is the witnesses and accused who were first to know of the death of the deceased. And the time is 8.00 pm and the next morning 2^nd June 2014 as that is when the ambulance and police came up to pick the body. It is not 3.00pm 1^st June 2014. Next morning is 2^nd June 2014 the accused admits that his wife died so he surrendered to police. Notable in this report is (1) multiple bruises and haematoma over the head, face, neck, shoulder and thigh, (2) Huge midline laceration done at the upper lip with loose or extracting 2 upper frontal canine teeth, (3) Left parietal skull scalp with haematoma and the neck has bruise and fractured and dislocated, (4) there is piercing wound on Mons pubis. The medical certificate of death also noted perforated lung with internal bleeding. These facts are proof of the extent and the amount of injuries depicted out showing the extent of the violence perpetrated upon the deceased. And these are the official records of the hospital exposed by the custodian.
    
28. I determine that the medical report showing the extent of the injuries is consistent with the account of the witnesses Maria Godfrey and her son Aravande Godfrey. I also determine and adjudge that the post mortem report and the medical certificate of death of Delilah Chris Walis alias Denila Toridon are consistent with the findings of fact that I have made above. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Chris Barambi assaulted his wife Delilah Chris Walis alias Denila Toridon with a baton and did cause the injuries that have been seen by the witnesses and set out by the Post Mortem and the medical certificate of death. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he intended to cause the death of his wife Delilah Chris Walis alias Denila Toridon. And that he fulfilled that intent even when she pleaded for him to stop and desist he did not persevered and persisted until her lifeless body was left behind in the shack and he surrendered to Police. I find him guilty of wilful murder contrary to section 299 of the Criminal Code.
    
29. In so doing, I warn that he must understand and appreciate well that Justice is divine drawing its source from the tablets that GOD handed to Moses on the mountain which is our law by our home grown Constitution. It will not decay as flesh and blood nor wither like the leaves in the air but sustain and prosper to bring all to heed and accord that the image GOD created will always speak the truth as that will set all free. I return a verdict of Guilty of wilful Murder against you Chris Barambi.
    

Ordered accordingly.
__________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor : Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor : Lawyer for the Defendant