Mondo v Ine [2007] PGDC 83; DC621 (18 July 2007)

DC621

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 515 of 2007

BETWEEN

JIM MONDO
Informant

AND

GREG INE
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2007: June 01, 18

CRIMINAL- Unlawful Assault – The nature and ingredients of Assault – Whether the prosecution witness is a reliable or credible witness.

Held – Where no other witnesses are called, the Court has the discretion to either accept or reject the evidence from the prosecution only witness.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
1. Section 6 of the Summary Offences Act

Counsel
First Constable Asi - For The State
In Person - For Defendant

18 July 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: Mr. Greg Ine stands charged that on the 04 May 2007 at Kofeyufa village, Goroka Mr. Greg Ine stands charged that on the 04 May 2007 at Koteyufa village, Goroka he did unlawfully assaulted another person of Mrs. Luwaigo Kunai.

2. The issue is not whether the offence was committed but whose evidence I should accept as reliable and credible.

3. Prosecution and the defence called one witness each.

4. The prosecution evidence can be summed up in this manner.

5. On the relevant date (14/05/07) Mrs. Kunai (victim) was in a campaign house of a candidate – Tama, at around 12:30 am. While there the defendant Mr. Greg Ine sent for her. She obediently came out and right at the door of the campaign house she was pulled and punched by the defendant without a word.

6. The victim then goes to describe the various assaults she went through on several occasions and at different places. She also described the various injuries which she sustained on her body.

7. As a result of the series of assault she sustained, she said she was not able to eat for two (2) days and on the third day, she reported the matter to Asaro Police.

8. She also stated that she is still in pain and has not fully recovered

9. In support of her injuries she sustained, she produced a Health booklet which recorded the infliction and medical treatment she received. No medical report was produced apart from the recordings on her Health booklet.

10. The defence evidence is from Ine Greg on his own behalf.

11. His evidence is that he went to the campaign house with the victim. He left her for sometime while he went home. On his return he said he saw the victim having fun with some people in the middle of the campaign house. This prompted him to call her out. He then punched her. He denied using the knife on her saying that he only pulled it away from her in fear of being used against him, as from past experience he was said to have been attacked by the victim with a kitchen knife.

12. He also denied pushing the victim down a hill and assaulting her causing her left middle man finger to be disjointed.

13. I have heard and considered both the prosecution witness and the defence. Here it is a question of whose evidence I should accept to be creditable and reliable.

14. The prosecution evidence is such that it was given precisely and in detail. The witness described what had happened to her from the time of assault from the campaign house to the time she was beaten in their own house, which forced her to escape at night and spending a night in her sisters house in the early hours of the next day. She than had to escape to her own village. She described how she could not eat for the next two days.

15. Her Health book which bears the names Betty Mitagipo, which are her other names, show the type of injuries she was treated for. Those inscribed injuries are consistent to her oral description of the injuries she sustained.

16. With all that, I must say that the prosecution evidence is creditable and reliable.

17. The medial health book description of the injuries are consistent of those described by the witness orally.

18. The assault on the victim were not only unlawful but they were brutal and that the manner in which she was assaulted was abnormal. This is the worse of domestic violence and abusive of the victim, so far as offences under Section 6 (3) of Summary Offences Act is concerned.

19. Evidence seems to suggest that the defendant was jealous of the victim, which he saw her cracking jokes and making fun with others.

20. I cannot comprehend the actions of the defendant, especially when the victim was doing it in front of many others around her in a house.

21. In arriving at an appropriate penalty I have considered that the defendant is a middle age person, who has had no prior conviction. He is an employee of the Goroka Urban Council and has also been considered.

22. The penalty must be proportionate to the nature of the assault he inflicted on the victim, such behaviour is also prevalent in a male dominated community and in this part of the country.

23. It must also be that wives must be treated with respect and dignity and not be treated as any properties or materials of a man. Therefore the penalty must also reflect to deter not only the defendant but anyone else who mistreats and abuse woman folks.

24. The offences carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding K500.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two (2) years.

25. This Court according sentence the defendant to twelve months imprisonment.

26. Six (6) months be suspended and placed on eighteen (18) months probation with a condition that he pays K1, 000.00 as compensation to the victim within two (2) months from the date he is released from jail.

27. Eighteen days be deducted for time spent in awaiting the court verdict. His bail be converted as part of the compensation.

28. He is to serve six (6) months in hard labour minus the eighteen (18) days.

29. Orders accordingly.

For the State - First Constable Asi of Goroka Police Station
For the Defendant - In Person