N1973

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR No. 414 of 2000

THE STATE

Against

DRIKORE YUANA PETER
Prisoner

KUNDIAWA: KIRRIWOM, J
2000: 13th & 15th June

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – Domestic related – Second wife murders new wife of common husband – Provocation by husband – Deceased stabbed twice on neck and chest while fast asleep with kitchen knife – Cold blooded and calculated murder – Observations on Polygamy as a threat to marital survival in Christian communities and an agent for moral decay in civilised world.

Facts

The prisoner, wife number two, was unhappy with the husband who took in another wife into the marriage she considered already overcrowded and who was also unhappy with the husband for comparing her with the third wife who was said to be educated took the law into her own hands and killed the third wife with a kitchen knife by stabbing her as she lay asleep in bed two times. The deceased died due to massive loss of blood. She was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment in hard labour.

Full facts are in the judgment.

Cases cited:
The State v Maria Pelta Pung (Yamai) [1995] PNGLR 173
The State v Margaret John (No.2) [1996] PNGLR 298
The State v Maria Er (Cr.744 of 1998) Unreported NC Judgment N1749

Counsel:
Mr F. Kuvi for the State
Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

15th June 2000

SENTENCE

KIRRIWOM, J: The prisoner is in her early 20s and a co-wife to a common husband in a polygamous marriage to which the deceased was the husband’s latest addition to his marriage. The prisoner is wife number two and the deceased was wife number three.

The prisoner claims to have been married to one Peter Kewa, whom I refer to as the ‘common husband’ for nearly five years and from which marriage she had a child who is now a little over a year old. She claimed that after the child was born the husband left her and the first wife and went away. He ignored his responsibility towards them. They learnt that he had taken on board a third wife.

On 19th December 1999 the prisoner and the first wife were in the latter’s house when they heard their common husband talking outside the house. They both went towards his direction. On the way she learnt that the husband had come home with the third wife and she had gone into a men’s haus or hausman. The prisoner and first wife proceeded with their husband into the latter’s house. Once inside the prisoner asked the husband about the third wife. The prisoner says that upon being asked, the husband told her to shut up and added that he married an educated woman and she was uneducated. Saying this he hit her. She was hurt for being denigrated as being of inferior class to an educated woman. She believed no doubt that the third wife would be attracting more attention from the common husband than her. This rising emotion within her was further compounded by the assault that added to her pain. She left for her own house. In the middle of the night when everyone was asleep, arming herself with a kitchen knife she proceeded to the hausman in search of her rival, the third wife. Her entry into the house was unnoticed by anyone including those who were asleep inside. After identifying her prey amongst the other familiar faces of sleeping bodies, she executed her anger by stabbing the sleeping figure on the back of her neck. The deceased screamed and the prisoner plunged the knife second time into her chest between the breasts. 

The deceased was taken to Kundiawa Hospital but she died some hours later as the result of haemorrhagic shock due to massive loss of blood.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to murder, the second most serious case of homicide which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This is a domestic related killing in that it arises out of matrimonial disharmony and it is quite prevalent in the highlands. My brother judge, Injia, J in a number of decisions he handed down in Mt Hagen in The State v Maria Er Unreported National Court Judgment dated 31/07/98 N1749 and in this very court in Kundiawa going back some years in The State v Margaret John (No.2) [1996] PNGLR 298 and an earlier decision of Akuram, AJ ( as he then was), in The State v Maria Pelta Pung (Yamai) [1995] PNGLR 173, both their honours took a very stern view of the upsurge of this crime and said that strong deterrent sentences were necessary to deter wives or co-wives involved in domestic disputes with their husbands, or with the husbands’ girlfriends or as between co-wives themselves. Whilst this is true, with respect, the problem, I think is more deeply rooted than simply penalising and incarcerating the already overly abused and battered wives who have the misfortune to go overboard in their emotional reactions by causing the death of another. The problem is one of building a bridge through legislative enactment linking God’s law and man’s law so that anyone who violates the law is met with criminal sanction. If Papua New Guinea is to remain a truly Christian country, polygamy must be outlawed for good and attended by severe penalties against those who practice it. Unless this is realised and actioned accordingly, unnecessary deaths resulting from polygamous marriages will continue to appear and reappear as contests between co-wives reach new heights to win greater attention from their one common husband while jealousies between them boil even hotter to the brink until the ultimate explosion.

Courts can do no more than simply point out the deficiencies in our legal system and the unfairness that exists as between wives and their husbands who cannot be sexually satisfied by just one wife other than by being promiscuous. I regret using the term promiscuous but that seems to me to be the reality in today’s interpretation of the practice. There is no denial that in some parts of Papua New Guinea, polygamy is permitted by custom for various cultural reasons including land heritage. But the practice has however become an all-embracing licence for men of all walks of life at all levels of varying intellect to flavour their immoral conduct under the guise of customarily accepted norm. The truth is, when you remove the disguise, the practice really is the reflection of the behavioural pattern of men in their pursuit of sexual gratification that can only be achieved from no lesser than one sexual partner.

But the Courts have a duty to ensure that the rule of law must prevail over everything that tampers with it. A crime committed must be addressed and the offender must be punished. Similarly the prisoner must be punished for her wrongdoing. She had no right to take the life of an innocent person. The deceased Julie Gena did not deserve to die in that manner. She was innocent of any crime. If the prisoner was unhappy with the common husband for bringing on board a third wife to the marriage which she considered to be already over-crowded as it was with her and first wife, she should have confined the fight with the husband only instead of extending it to the deceased.

The deceased was only a woman like her once upon a time and when Prince Charming came along with all his promises and good looks, she was just as human and more so a woman like her that she could not resist but submit to this over-bearing influence. Women who find themselves in these situations must try and rationalise the situation before them prior to resorting to violence.

The factor that weighs heavily against the prisoner in this case is that she had time to think over the situation at hand. She waited until everyone had gone to sleep and then she crept into the house where the deceased was fast asleep and she executed the death sentence on the deceased. This killing is akin to cold-blooded murder. The victim was unaware and defenceless and was stabbed in vital parts of the body where the prisoner could be said to have intended to kill the deceased. While it is easy to blame someone like the husband to have provoked her to do this to the third wife, human life is so sacred and precious that all God-fearing men and women must be slow to lift a knife in anger that can terminate life in one single thrust. This killing was deliberate and calculated. It was not the result of a fight turning into a nightmare when a weapon was used by one of them. This was a planned and calculated incident carried out in such determined and deliberate manner that the end result of death was inevitable as was intended. The prisoner said she did not intend to kill the deceased, she only wanted to inflict pain. When you plunge a sharp kitchen knife into the neck of a person, pull it out and plunge it the second time into the chest between the breasts, there can be little doubt that the attacker meant much more than merely to inflict pain. Action speaks louder than words, irrespective of what the prisoner now says what was or was not in her mind at the time of the attack. Leaving aside the domestic side of this murder, this is indeed a very serious case capable of attracting the maximum penalty.

But notwithstanding the seriousness of the case I also take into account the prisoner’s background. It was submitted in mitigation in her favour that I must consider her plea of guilty, her expression of remorse, prior good record other than an earlier conviction arising out of a domestic argument with her husband where she was convicted of wilful damage to property that belonged to her husband. Whilst that conviction do not mean much in comparison with what she now faces, it tells one thing and that is that the prisoner is a woman of violent disposition. I take all these matters into account.

In mitigation it was also submitted that some initial compensation had been paid but a big compensation is pending and expected to be paid either in October or November 2000 on a date to be fixed. I encourage that to take place.

The range of sentences in domestic killings have been discussed extensively in reported and unreported cases both in the National and Supreme Courts. The three National Court cases I cited above acknowledge the rising trend in sentencing in killings arising under these circumstances. In all the circumstances, I sentenced the prisoner to twelve (12) years imprisonment in hard labour which in my view is well within the range.
____________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State:					Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Prisoner:				Public Solicitor