State v Obande [1983] PGNC 15; N444 (10 November 1983)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N444

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
ANI OBANDE

Rabaul

Woods AJ
9-10 November 1983

SORCERY - ACT OF SORCERY MAY BE ONLY ONE STEP IN PROCESS OF CARRYING POWERS OF SORCERY INTO EFFECT.

SORCERY ACT -CHAPTER 274.

R. v K.J. and Another (1973) P.N.G.L.R. 93.

WOODS AJ: The accuseANI OBANDE i/u> is charged with doing an act of forbidden sorcery contrary to s.7(a) of the Sorcery Act Ch.274.

It is alleged that the accusedared some poison by mixing some lime taken from the victim ctim with other ingredients and then the mixture was wrapped in tobacco leaves and then subjected to heat on a fire. This caused the victim to get sick and eventually die. It is alleged that a person called YAKE got sick and died because of this sorcery.

Two witnesses for the State gave evidence of going to see the accused to find out about the sorcery and of making a payment to buy back the poison. One of these witnesses was apparently a close relative of the person alleged to have died because of the sorcery. These witnesses gave evidence that the accused told them that he knew about the poison and he told him, “for K120.00 I will give you back the poison.” They gave him K120.00 and he told them to come back another day. When they returned another day, the accused told them to wait while he went out for a walk and when he came back he said, “the poison is hot at the moment and if you take it now, it will shake in the vehicle and your brother will die.” He told them to come back another day. He also told them about the poison being mixed with the deceased’s lime. When they returned another day, they couldn’t find the accused, but when they found him, he put them off with excuses. The next day, the person died.

The State called a witness namely RAPHAEL HULA to tell the court about how this type of sorcery is done and how the poison is processed. He told the court about the mixing of certain ingredients, wrapping the mixture in a leaf and heating it over a fire and how the victim could buy the poison back. He also referred to the need to know the song.

The accused himself admitted to the Investigating Officer in a Record of Interview that he had been involved in the sorcery to cause another person’s death.

The offence is under the Sorcery Act Ch.274. This Act has a comprehensive preamble which emphasises the fear that many people have of sorcery and refers to the distinction between innocent sorcery and evil sorcery. An ‘act of sorcery’ is defined in s.1 of the Act as meaning; “any act that is intended to bring, or that purports to be able or to be adapted to bring powers of sorcery into action or to make them possible or carry them into effect.” Forbidden sorcery is defined negatively in the section to mean, sorcery which is not innocent sorcery; innocent sorcery is set out in the first schedule to the Act.

The particular sorcery alleged in this case was sorcery to harm a person to cause him to get sick and die, and therefore is quite clearly not innocent sorcery. I am quite satisfied that the sorcery alleged in this case is forbidden sorcery for the purposes of the Sorcery Act.

Counsel for the defendant submitted that it was necessary for the State to prove the defendant had performed all the stages of the sorcery before it could be alleged that he had done an act of sorcery.

In other words, ‘act of sorcery’ meant the whole of the sorcery. Counsel submitted that the evidence did not show that all the stages of the sorcery were done by the accused and, for example, there was no evidence, the accused had said the words required for the sorcery. Therefore, the evidence did not show the accused had done a complete act of sorcery.

The definition of ‘act of sorcery’ includes any act that purports to be able or to be adapted to bring powers of sorcery into action or to make them possible. This definition appears to contemplate that an act may constitute an act of sorcery for the purposes of the Act, even though it may only be as it were a step in the process of carrying powers of sorcery into effect. This interpretation was adopted by the Supreme Court in R v. K.J. and Another (1973) P.N.G.L.R. 93 p.104.

There is clear evidence and admission that the accused was involved in doing acts of sorcery or steps in the process of carrying powers of sorcery into effect. I am therefore satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused ANI OBANDE did an act of forbidden sorcery and I therefore, find the accused ANI OBANDE guilty of doing an act of forbidden sorcery contrary to s.7 of the Sorcery Act Ch.274.

(The accused was then sentenced to two (2) years Imprisonment with Hard Labour)

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Counsel: Mr M. Peter

Lawyer for the Defendant: M. Maraleu

Counsel: Mr M. Maraleu