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

State v Talumb [2025] PGNC 512; N11649 (18 December 2025)

N11649

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 363 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

KORASKALI TALUMB

WABAG: ELLIS J
17, 18 OCTOBER, 18 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – ATTEMPTED MURDER - s. 304(a) CCA – Plea – no priors – de facto provocation - 10 years IHL less time served, 5 years suspended

Brief facts

Shortly after a mediation, the offender struck the victim on the back of the neck with a bush knife. The offender believed victim’s son was having an affair with the offender’s wife.

Held

(1) Starting point of ten years to promote deterrence of wounds to the head and neck from the use of a bush knife.
(2) Allowance for mitigating factors by suspending half that ten-year term.

Cases cited
Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
State v Bulu Yasangara (2007) N5478
State v Hrembari [2021] PGNC 643; N9911
State v Lukas [2022] PGNC 606; N10347
State v Gigmai [2016] PGNC 248; N6443

Counsel
P. Tengdui for the State
L. Toke for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Koraskali Talumb, of Waleip village in Maramuni, in the Wabag District of Enga Province, was charged with attempted murder, based on section 304(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
   
2. Section 304 of the CCA, so far as is presently relevant, provides:
   

“A person who-

(a) attempts unlawfully to kill another person; or
(b) ...

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.”

Allocutus

3. After a conviction was recorded, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court. What he said was as follows:
   

He is my first brother. I have just hit him. I have done wrong. So I say sorry to the Court. Can the Court have mercy on me, and I will compensate my brother. I wrongfully attacked my brother so I will say sorry.

Evidence

4. The State tendered the pages numbered 26 to 53 from the Police brief that were admitted, without objection, as Exhibit A. The s 96 statement of the offender was also tended and became Exhibit 1. In his s. 96 statement, the offender said he aimed at the victim’s son but struck the victim. Otherwise, the version of events he suggested in that statement did not materially differ from the State’s evidence. No submission was made that there was any such difference.
   
5. Based on that evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
   

(1) On 3 November 2023 there was a gathering near Wailep primary school.

(2) The purpose of that gathering was to mediate an accusation by the offender that the victim’s son, and another man, had been having an affair with the offender’s wife.

(3) The offender also alleged that those affairs caused the death of his 21-day old baby.

(4) On that occasion, the offender attacked the victim’s son but they were separated.

(5) Shortly afterwards, the offender struck the victim on the neck with a bush knife.

(6) That blow cause a wound to the back of the neck of the victim that was 16 cm long and 4 cm wide.

(7) As a result of a two-hour trip to Wabag General Hospital, the life of the victim was saved, and he recovered from that injury.

(8) On his way to that hospital, the victim urged people not to retaliate but to leave the matter for the court to determine.

Submissions for the offender

6. The offender was said to be aged 40, married, being the father of two children but one of them has died, being a subsistence farmer with no educational background. Both his parents were said to have died, and he is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church.
   
7. The circumstances of this case were said to be that the offender was provoked. The basis for that submission was said to be that the son of the victim had an adulterous affair with the offender’s wife.
   
8. That was said to have cause the offender’s son to have died. It was said there was a gathering to mediate, following the death of that child, at which time the victim’s son provoked the offender by saying that he was also married to the offender’s wife and that the child that died was not only his. At the same time, the offender was mourning the death of his child. As a result, the offender and the victim’s son had a fight. During that fight the victim’s son, who was armed with a gun, tried to shoot the offender. The victim took sides with his son. In the process, the offender cut the victim once, on his neck, with a bush knife. It was suggested the offender was forced to do what he did.
   
9. The mitigating factors were said to be that the offender is a first offender, who cooperated with the Police by admitting the offence, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and expressed remorse. The extenuating circumstances was said to be the relationship between the victim’s son and the offender’s wife. Aggravating factors were said to be the use of a bush knife to attack the victim, being a prevalent offence.
   
10. It was conceded that the victim’s injury was serious, but it was said that he had recovered fully.
    
11. The suggested sentencing range was imprisonment for between 5 and 10 years, and that in rare case the offender would receive a suspended sentence. The decision in State v Hrembari [2021] PGNC 643; N9911 (Hrembari) was cited, along with State v Lukas [2022] PGNC 606; N10347 (Lucas).
    
12. It was suggested that a lower sentence should be imposed in this case. A head sentence of 5 years was suggested. Reference was also made to the decision in State v Gigmai [2016] PGNC 248; N6443 (Gigmai) which a sentence of seven years was imposed. The offender in that case had already served 3 years and 4 months and the balance of the sentence was suspended, being 3 years and 8 months. The offender was also required to pay compensation of K1,000 within 6 months.
    
13. It was suggested a sentence of 5 years should be imposed, with 8 months deducted for time already served. Further, it was contended that the balance should be suspended in part based on the offender being willing to pay compensation to his brother. It was also contended that the court should give the offender the benefit of the doubt in the event of any factual dispute by adopting the version favourable to the accused.
    

Submissions of the State

14. As to the circumstances, it was noted that there was an argument at a time when people were present to resolve an issue between the offender and the victim’s son. They were said to have each gone their own way, but the offender returned and, without warning, attacked him from behind, striking him on the back of the head. The location was said to be remote but, by taking the victim to the hospital, his life was saved.
    
15. The State also referred to the decision in Hrembari. However, it was said that case involved a direct conflict between the offender and the victim, which was said to be in contrast with this case. It was said that the victim, while being taken to hospital, told his people not to retaliate with the contended result that peace was maintained. A head sentence of between 10 to 12 years was said to be appropriate in this case.
    

Relevant law

16. Hrembari was a case where the victim was rendered permanently paralysed and bedridden. A sentence of ten years was imposed on the basis that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.
    
17. Lukas had mitigating factors of no priors, an early plea and no pre-planning. However, the aggravating factors were that there was an unprovoked attack, with a bush knife and a vicious attack. The sentence in that case was eight years.
    
18. In Lucas, it was noted that sentencing guidelines for cases of attempted murder had been suggested in State v Bulu Yasangara (2007) N5478 which added four categories by taking the categories set out in Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789 and halving the sentencing ranges for a charge of murder. That would suggest a range of imprisonment for 8 to 10 years in this case.
    
19. Gigmai involved cooperation with the police, an early plea, no pre-planning, a first offender, with de facto provocation. The only aggravating factor was said to be the prevalence of the offence, multiple wounds, the use of an axe and a group attack at night. It was noted, in that case, that the maximum penalty for the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm was imprisonment for seven years. A sentence of seven years was imposed, less three years and four months already spent in custody. The remaining term of three years and eight months was wholly suspended.
    

Consideration

20. In view of the prevalence of bush knife wounds, especially in Enga Province, it is considered important to establish a measure of deterrence by making it clear that using a bush knife to strike another person, especially on the head or neck will attract a significant sentence. That is reinforced by the fact that the victim, while on his way to hospital, made comments which suggest that he wanted to leave the question of punishment for the court. His comments were plainly intended to stop a spread of violence after the incident under consideration.
    
21. Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a head sentence of imprisonment for ten years is considered appropriate, with an allowance for the plea of guilty and de facto provocation to operate by way of a suspension of a portion of that sentence. If the conduct of the accused on the occasion under consideration proves to not be an isolated instance, then he will serve the full sentence of ten years and not the lesser sentence of five years.
    
22. A suggestion was made that the offender wishes to pay compensation. The relationship between sentencing and compensation was considered in Kovi. What was said in that case may be summarised in three propositions:
    

(1) Compensation is not an alternative to the application of the criminal law.

(2) Local customs may make compensation relevant for sentencing purposes.

(3) The form and amount of compensation must be considered.

23. In this case, there was (1) no indication of what compensation was proposed, (2) no indication of when it would be paid, (3) no explanation of why it had not already been paid, and (4) no evidence of the attitude of the victim to compensation. Without such evidence, the reference to compensation presents as nothing more than an attempt to buy a lesser sentence.
    

Sentence

24. For those reasons, the Court considers that imprisonment for hard labour for 10 years should be imposed. Deducting the period the offender has spent in custody of 8 months gives a period to be served of 9 years and 4 months. Suspending 5 years of the sentence, on conditions, leaves a period of 4 years and 4 months to be served.
    
25. Those conditions will be a residence requirement, plus requirements to be of good behaviour, to not consume alcohol or other intoxicating substances, and to appear before the National Court in the event of any breach of those conditions.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Defendant