State v Waragu No 3 [2007] PGNC 139; N3282 (2 February 2007)

N3282

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 278 OF 2004 & 580 OF 2005

THE STATE

-V-

MICHAEL WARAGU &
ANTON MARKO (N0.3)

Kokopo: Lenalia, J.

2006: 5 December,
2007: 7 February

CRIMINAL LAW – Wilful Murder – Sentence – Matters for consideration – Criminal Code s.299

CRIMINAL LAW – Wilful Murder – Sentencing principles – Mitigating and aggravating factors – Killing committed with circumstances of aggravations – Worst type case – Life imprisonment appropriate.

Cases cited.

Manu Kovi v The State (31.5.05) SC789
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Avia Aihi (N0.3) v The State [1982] PNGLR 92
Hure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105
The State v Waiyake Komane & 8 Others [1992] PNGLR 524
Ombusu v The State [1996] PNGLR 335
Steven Loke Ume, Charles Patrick Kaona & Greg Wawa Kavona v The State (unreported decision of Woods; J of 7.2.1997)
The State v Arua Maraga Hariki (2003) N2332
The State v Ben Simakot Simbu(N0.2) (2004) N2548
The State v Mark Poroli (2004) N2655
The State v Rex Zano Onepa (2005) N2858

Counsels:

L. Rangan, for State.
J. Issac, for the Accused.

7 February, 2007

1. LENALIA, J: The two prisoners pleaded not guilty to two counts of wilful murder contrary to s.299 (1) of the Criminal Code. A trial was conducted. They were tried together with eight other co – accused. After a submission of "no case to answer" was made, the court found that there was no case for those eight others to answer so they were acquitted.

2. Due to cogent evidence against accused Michael Waragu and Anton Marko the court found that there was a case for the two accused to answer and the trial proceeded by calling upon the two accused to give evidence and call witnesses. They each gave evidence. However they did not call any witnesses.

3. On 5th of December last year, the court found the two accused guilty of wilful murder and convicted them as charged because the court found that there was clear intention on the part of the two accused to kill the two victims, (refer to my judgment dated 5th December 2006).

4. It was not only a finding from the evidence but the two accused in their evidence on oath testified that, they each wanted to kill the two victims so they could obtain the vehicle to conduct a further unlawful purpose being a planned armed robbery at Hamamas Hotel in the heart of Rabaul town.

FINDING OF FACTS

5. The following are the finding of facts and evidence upon which the two accused were found guilty. On the evening of 17 May 2003 at Malaguna No.1 and No.2 villages the two accused were amongst a group of twelve (12) men (including the two accused) who boarded a motor vehicle at Malaguna No.1 village. That vehicle owned by Agmark Pacific Ltd was driven by one of the two deceased Rebon Taule (employee of above company) with the intention to drop off the other deceased John Patem at Vunamami village on the outskirts of Kokopo town.

6. When the two deceased and witness Robert Tito took off from Bob Darrah’s Service Station in Rabaul town, they drove down to Malaguna No.2 village and stopped near a shop to buy a six pack of beer. After buying the beer, when they were ready to take off, an old man and his wife from Rapolo village came and asked the driver if they could be given a lift to their village.

7. The driver consented to assist the two old folks. When the couple was getting on twelve young men including the two accused came and forced their way through by also getting into the vehicle. When the driver saw the men getting on, he asked them where they were going. They indicated that they also wanted to go to Rapolo village.

8. The driver took off from there and drove to the above village. When they stopped, the old man and his wife alighted. Two of the young men got off at the same time, however the others including the two accused did not want to get off the vehicle.

9. The driver asked why the rest of the gang members did not want to get off the vehicle. He was met by opposition, insults, and threats from the gang. The driver asked the gang again as to where they were going.

10. They answered that they wanted to be driven back to Malaguna No.2 village where they had been picked up. Rebon Taule and John Patem informed the men that, they were going to Vunamami village to drop off John Patem. Having heard what the two deceased said, the men demanded that they be driven back to Malaguna village or else they would damage the vehicle or cause trouble.

11. The court found that, the accused Anton Marko jumped off the vehicle with his bush/knife and swore and insulted the two deceased and witness Robert Tito. He cut the bonnet of the vehicle with the bush/knife and further swore at the driver and his crew.

12. Accused Anton Marko demanded that the gang members and himself be driven back immediately to where they were picked up. He threatened to cause further damage to the vehicle if the driver did not turn the vehicle around as requested by the two accused.

13. The court further found that, when the two victims and witness Robert Tito realized that the gang members were serious about their unreasonable demands, they conferred amongst themselves and the driver reluctantly agreed to drive them back to where they demanded to be taken to.

14. From the evidence of Robert Tito, the court found that, the two victims and this witness knew that the accused Anton Marko was a well-known criminal and an escapee who had absconded from Keravat Correctional Services custody, was out at large and that they should take him over to the police station at Rabaul. After reaching that conclusion the driver and his two crew members agreed to drive the gang back to Rabaul so they could report to the police station and deliver accused Anton Marko to the police.

15. The evidence shows that when the driver drove back towards Rabaul, the gang members tried to stop the vehicle on a dark portion of the road where there was no light. The evidence and facts are that, when the driver did not stop, accused Michael Waragu and Anton Marko started to hit the side screens and doors of the vehicle using bush/knives. They shouted and called out for the driver to stop but sensing trouble, the vehicle did not stop.

16. By the time this was happening, the driver and his off-sider had wounded up their side screens. The evidence by the prosecution and even the defence show that, the two accused used their weapons (bush/knives) to break the side screens and they started to stab the two victims. The driver picked up speed with the intention to drive direct to the Rabaul Police Station.

17. Taking advantage of there being no side screens, the two accused started to stab the two victims. The prosecution evidence is clear that Rebon Taule and John Patem were repeatedly stabbed on or over their bodies before the vehicle collided with another vehicle parked on the left hand side of the road near Malaguna Primary School.

18. As soon as the vehicle in issue landed on the right hand side of the road, the facts and evidence show that the two accused were the major perpetrators of the killings. They (the two accused) jumped out of the vehicle with bush/knives in their hands and started to inflict further stab wounds on the two deceased.

19. Robert Tito said in his evidence that, as soon as the vehicle in issue was stationary, accused Anton Marko came to where the victim Rebon Taule was sitting in the car and inflicted two severe stab wound blows on his body with one landing on his neck. The same witness further saw accused Michael Waragu inflicted a severe stab wound on the late John Patem.

20. Although the two medical reports are not in evidence, I feel bound to refer to them. The reasons I would like to do that are twofold. First and foremost is the very fact that, the defence evidence does not deny the fateful killings of the two deceased.

21. By their own evidence, the two accused admitted that they each and severally wanted to kill the two deceased because they wanted to obtain the vehicle by force to commit an armed robbery at the Hamamas Hotel. By their own evidence, the two accused admitted that they repeatedly stabbed the two deceased and wanted to kill them.

22. From the evidence contained in the records of interview obtained from the two accused it is clear they had been intoxicated to a certain degree coupled with smoking of marijuana during the day of the evening the offences were committed.

23. Secondly, the prosecution evidence shows that, the two deceased received multiple stab wounds on their bodies. That fact is confirmed by the medical evidence on the mutilated bodies of the two victims.

24. As a tribunal of fact, I found that, the bodies of the deceased were gutted with wounds all over and such wounds were unlawfully caused by the two accused because they wanted to kill the two victims so they could obtain the vehicle.

25. I rejected the defence submission on the issue of provocation pursuant to s.266 of the Criminal Code. Defence counsel argued that their clients acted on the heat of passion when they started to stab the victims because the driver was speeding to the point where their clients were frightened in case they might involve in an accident such that they started to attack the two deceased. I made the following comments on my decision on the verdict on 5 December 2006 at pages 11-13:

"The two accused are charged with two serious crimes of wilful murder contrary to s.299 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty provided under the above proviso is "death". The defence has argued that their clients acted on the heat of passion when the two accused started to cut the victims when the vehicle was still travelling. The issue really is can the two accused seek refuge under s.266 of the Code. The above provision states:

"266. Provocation.

(1) Subject to this section, "provocation" used with

reference to an offence of which an assault is an element,

means a wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be likely, when done—

(a) to an ordinary person; or

(b) in the presence of an ordinary person to another

person—

(i) who is under his immediate care; or

(ii) to whom he stands—

(A) in a conjugal, parental, filial or fraternal

relationship; or

(B) in the relation of master or servant,to deprive him of the power of self-control, and to induce him to assault the person by whom the act or insult is done or offered.

(2) When an act or insult referred to in Subsection (1) is done or offered by one person to another, or in the presence of another to a person who is under the immediate care of that other or to whom the latter stands in a relation referred to in Subsection (1) the former is said to give to the latter provocation for an assault.

(3) A lawful act is not provocation to any person for an assault.

(4) An act that a person does in consequence of incitement given by another person in order to induce him to do the act, and thus to furnish an excuse for committing an assault, is not provocation to that other person for an assault.

(5) An arrest that is unlawful is not necessarily provocation for an assault, but may be evidence of provocation to a person who knows of the illegality."

The evidence by the prosecution is confirmed by the defence own evidence that, the two accused intended to kill the victims because the driver in this case Rebon Taule did not stop when he was shouted down to stop at a dark place where there was no light. According to the two accused own testimonies, the reason for wanting the driver to stop was that the two of them wanted to hold the driver up because they wanted to rob the driver of the vehicle so they could used it to conduct an armed robbery which they had planned to take place at Hamamas hotel.

Evidence by witness Robert Tito is clear that the reason why the driver drove fast was because, the three of them sitting in the cabin perceived that, they would be robbed of the vehicle if they had heeded signals for them to stop.

Their suspicion was confirmed by the fact that one of the two accused in court was an escapee from Keravat prison and they feared that if they stopped, they would certainly be held up. This was mere suspicion on the part of Robert and the two deceased.

However such suspicion was confirmed by the defence evidence. I am of the view that the two accused cannot successfully raise the defence of provocation under s.266 of the Criminal Code as I find that the intention to kill the two deceased did not develop or that such intention was not formed after the accident happened.

The two accused had started stabbing the victims well before their vehicle hit the stationary vehicle and in fact right from the time the gang wanted the driver to stop. In the two accused’s own testimonies, they said the reason they wanted to attack and kill the driver and his cabin crew was because they wanted to rob them of the vehicle so they could use it to stage the robbery at the place referred to above".

26. I could not even come to an alternative finding under s.303 or s.539 of the Code in the face of very clear evidence on the element of intention to kill. I referred to Question 23 and its answer in the record of interview with accused Michael Waragu and Question 22 and its answer with accused Anton Marko on page 16 of my decision on the verdict dated 5 December last year. In answer to those two questions the two accused gave reasons why they wanted to stop the driver.

27. The reasons they gave was that they wanted to stop the driver because they wanted to obtain the vehicle by force to use it to commit a robbery.

ALLOCATUS

28. After they were found guilty, the court administered allocutus to each of them and this is what they said. In case of prisoner Michael Waragu, he said:

- he is very sorry for what he did to the two victims,
- he has now been baptized by immersion into the PNG Revival Church, such baptism took place while he was in custody,
- he now realizes that what he did to the two victims is wrong in law,
- if he does not tell the truth, he knows that the Almighty God will punish him and will not be forgiven,
- he is scared of God,
- that he will accept responsibility for what he did and will accept the decision of the court,
- he requests for mercy.

29. In case of Anton Marko, he said:

- he is sorry to God and very sorry for breaking the law in the PNG Constitution,
- while he was in custody of Correctional Services

officers, he escaped and came home but he stayed in the bush,

- he now realizes that what he did is wrong in law,
- that while he was in custody, he was baptized because he was born again,
- he surrendered to police,
- if he does not confess his sins, God will not forgive him, he quoted from the Gospel of Matthew 18:18 to support that proposition,
- he will accept the decision on the court in his case,
- he asked the court to exercise leniency to him on sentence, and
- he wishes to serve his term of imprisonment at Bomana Major Correctional Services in Port Moresby.

30. He did not give any reasons why he should serve a term of imprisonment in Bomana Correctional Services if he was sentenced to a term of years.

COUNSELS ADDRESSES

31. On behalf of the two prisoners, Mr. Isaac submitted that unlike other cases where the death penalty has been imposed, the cases of the two accused should not be treated as one of those "worst type case" as the manner under which his clients executed the killing was because they were provoked in the "non legal sense".

32. He submitted that because the driver was speeding, the two prisoners feared for their lives so they committed the offence. He further submitted that his clients are first offenders, they are youths and have a long future to go in life. He cited the cases of The State v Waiyake Komane & 8 Others [1992] PNGLR 524 and that of The State v Rex Zano Onepa (2005) N2858 to support the argument that the two prisoners’ cases do not warrant imposition of the maximum penalty.

33. In the former case a gang acted in concert and robbed a business manger and a number of students from the Sonoma Adventist College. In the course of the hold-up, two students were shot and killed. The gang was charged with the crime of wilful murder. The defence put up by the nine co-accused was that the killing was done by accident. They were found guilty of a lesser charge and the principal offender was sentenced to 6 years while the others were given 5 years each. In the latter case, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment for a double wilful murder of his wife and a policeman at the Kokopo police station. The policeman died hours after he was stabbed.

Mr. Rangan of counsel for the State argued in reply that, if the instant case cannot be categorized as the worst type case at least in this Province, what else would the current cases could be categorized as.

34. Counsel urged the court to be guided by the set of photographs taken after the two deceased were killed and to make an independent assessment of the wounds received on the bodies of the two victims. He further submitted that the current case falls within the worst type category of wilful murder cases. That the current case was a double murder and the court must treat the cases as such. I would agree with counsel on that view and say that at least on this region this case is one of the worst type killings.

35. Mr. Rangan submitted further that, on the process, the court should make an order for Correctional Services officers at Keravat to carry out the execution of the two prisoners at that centre. I will return to this argument later. However, just briefly before I discuss the law on how a sentence of death can be executed, there is no mechanism in place for purposes of defining how the death penalty can be executed.

36. As a matter of law the courts can only impose a penalty provided for by statute and has no power to impose any other form of punishment even customary punishment. Section 19 of the Criminal Code provides for the type of penalties that can be imposed by the National Court and as such this court cannot go outside the scope of such provision. Even though the death penalty is provided for under s.299 of the Code, there is no law in place defining how the death penalty can be executed.

LAW

37. The prescribed maximum penalty under s.299 (2) of the Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262) is death. Perhaps I just mention a little bit of history about the "life" and "death" sentences. When Papua New Guinea got its Independence on 16 September 1975, the then prescribed penalty for the crime of wilful murder was "death". However, only one year after that, by an amendment called the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act (Act No. 2 of 1976) the death penalty was repealed and replaced instead with life imprisonment which is now the maximum penalty. That was in relation to the crime of wilful murder.

38. Because of the rise in the general law and order problem in the country and more particularly in the Highlands region where tribal fights were very much common, the Parliament decided to reintroduce the death penalty. So in 1991, by an amendment, the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act (Act No. 25 of 1991) the penalty provision was amended which resulted in the reintroduction of the death penalty.

39. The wording of the section under which the two accused are charged provides:

"299. Wilful murder.

(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 other persons, is guilty of wilful murder.

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

40. On 5 December 2006, this court found the two accused guilty on charges of wilful murder. In order for the court to sentence the two accused for these very serious charges, let me set out the principals of sentencing guidelines for cases of wilful murder in various cases set by the Supreme Court.

41. The principle for sentencing in wilful murder cases were enunciated in Goli Golu -v- The State [1979] PNGLR, 653, Avia Aihi (No.3) -v- The State [1982] PNGLR. 92 and Ure Hane -v- The State [1984] PNGLR 105. The principle is that, the maximum penalty should be reserved for the most serious instances of offences under consideration. This means that, the maximum penalty should only be imposed in those cases where they are categorized to be the "worst type cases" encountered in practice.

42. It is often said that, the penalty to be imposed must fit the crime committed. It is hard for the court to describe the manner under which the two accused executed the death penalty upon the two innocent victims in this case. In this country, since the reintroduction of the death penalty, a number of prisoners have been sentenced to death.

43. In all the following cases, trial judges have found that, those cases were in the category classed as they were in the "worse type case". What is a worst type case depends entirely on the circumstances with which the offence of wilful murder is committed.

44. In Hure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105, Bredmeyer, J; set out eight (8) categories of serious wilful murder which can be categorized as worst type killings. They include:

- a wilful murder committed in the course of committing thefts, robbery, break and enter or rape,

- wilful murder of a policeman or prison officer acting in execution of their duties,

- wilful murder done in course of resisting arrest or escape from lawful custody,

- wilful murder of person in police or court custody- a payback killing of completely innocent person,

- a second or third murder,

- a wilful murder committed by a person having a long record of violence,

- wilful murder of VIPs.

45. Since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1991, a number of accused persons have been sentenced to death. The first of those cases where the death penalty has been imposed is The State- v -Ombusu (Unreported National Court Judgment of 17th February 1995). That was the case where Doherty; J. imposed the death penalty on the accused, a man from Popondetta for wilful murder.

46. On appeal by the appellant in that case, the Supreme Court comprising of five men bench upheld the appeal in both conviction and sentence for rape and wilful murder were quashed on technical grounds only, (See Ombusu- v- The State [1996] PNGLR. 335).

47. The next case is that of The State- v- Steven Loke Ume, Charles Patrick Kaona & Greg Wawa Kavoa (Unreported National Court Judgment of 7th February 1997). Woods; J. sentenced the three accused to death for what His Honour in that case considered to be one of those worst type cases.

48. When the three appellants appealed, against both convictions and sentences of death, after grant of legal aid by the Public Solicitor a Supplementary Notice of Appeal was filed on 23 July 1997 in which they appealed against conviction only.

49. The Supreme Court consisting of Amet; CJ: Kapi; DCJ: (as they were then) and Sevua; J: dismissed the appeal against conviction only, (see Loke Ume, Charles Patrick Kaona & Greg Wawa Kavoa- v- The State SCRA 10 of 1997 decision dated 4 May 2000). The appeal against sentence under the original notice of appeal could not proceed before that bench because it was not clear from the supplementary notice of appeal whether the appellants had abandoned their grounds of appeal against sentence.

50. The appeal against the sentence was finally determined on 19 May 2006 by a five (5) member Supreme Court bench comprising of Kapi CJ; Injia DCJ; Los, Hinchliffe & Davani JJ. The appeal was allowed and the death sentences imposed on each appellant by the National Court in Kimbe on 7 February 1997 were quashed.
    

51. The Court shall mention some more cases a little later on which the maximum penalty of death has been imposed but for the moment let the Court now mention the principles of sentencing for wilful murder cases which have been enunciated by the Supreme Court in three earlier cases at the time when life imprisonment was the maximum penalty for the offence of wilful murder. In Goli Golu - v -The State [1979] PNGLR.653, the Supreme Court said:

"In sentencing for wilful murder, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment should be reserved for the most serious instances of the offence"

52. Three years after that, in Avia Aihi - v - The State (No.3) [1982] PNGLR 92 the Supreme Court held that:

"The basic principle of proportionality to the offence applies when considering sentences of life imprisonment, which, as the maximum punishment, should be imposed only in cases properly categorized as "worst type cases".

53. In Ure Hane - v - The State [1984] PNGLR 105 on the foot-note the Supreme Court said:

"When considering whether or not the maximum penalty of life imprisonment should be imposed for wilful murder, the court should, in so far as the law allows, categorize those "worst type" cases for which the penalty of life imprisonment should be reserved and then determine whether the particular offender comes within that category: the crime must warrant the penalty not the offenders."

54. Very recently in The State v Arua Maraga Hariki (2003) N2332, Salika, J; imposed the death penalty on an offender who killed two young men with whom he had been drinking with during the night the offences were committed. The appellant strangled the two deceased by their necks.

55. Evidence did not directly show that he killed both persons but only one of them. The court found by circumstantial evidence that the appellant had also killed the other deceased as well because the evidence pointed to such conclusion.

56. Then in The State v Ben Simakot Simbu (N0.2) (2004) N2548, Kandakasi; J sentenced the accused to death for a double murder of a mother and her young child. The offences took place on 19 July 2002 in Vanimo, Sandaun Province. The accused in the above case went to the victims block and requested to get a life chicken on credit basis so that he could pay for it later whenever he got the money. The victim refused and the accused repeated his request the second and third time.

57. On the third time, when the adult victim refused, the accused grabbed her and forced her down to the ground and thereafter, he forcefully had sexual intercourse with her.

58. After having sex with the victim the accused got a piece of iron and hit her across her head causing instant death. He got the same piece of iron and hit the child on its head. The child died instantly as well. The trial judge found that the killing in the above case was in the worse type category.

59. In that same year (2004) in The State v Mark Poroli (2004) N2655 at Mendi in Southern Highlands, this court sentenced the accused to death for wilfully killing a policeman on duty. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The killing was one of those most serious cases. What happened in that case was that there was a shoot out between police and the people who were gathering for 2002 election campaign. The offence took place between Koroba and Tari in the Southern Highlands Province.

60. The victim in the above case was a policeman who was on duty together with a number of police personals who provided escort for an intending candidate. After the shoot out, a relative of the accused was shot dead.

61. There was no evidence that a policeman shot the man. When the police vehicle was returning to Tari, the tyres got punctured and the police escort fled on foot. Some of them including the victim spend the night in the bushes because it was dark.

62. Early in the morning, the accused and his men found the victim and took him to a hill on a little cliff and the accused and his men asked a pastor to pray for the victim. After the pastor prayed, the accused asked the deceased to say his last prayer and he stood less than a meter away from him and fired a shot right into the forehead of the policeman. He died instantly.
63. It is trite law that the maximum penalty ought to be reserved for the worst type cases encountered in our criminal practice. What remains for the court to consider is whether the cases before me warrant imposition of the maximum penalty. As alluded to earlier, the highest penalty the court can impose for the offence of wilful murder is death.

64. According to the kinds of serious wilful murder cases listed in Hure Hane v The State (supra) at page 107 – 109, the case before me would fall into category 6 because it is a double wilful murder on two innocent victims.

65. The killings in the circumstances in the case before me were deliberate and calculated wilful murders which involved some elements of pre-planning on the part of the two accused. There was no respect for the lives of the two deceased in the present case.

66. The two accused mercilessly slaughtered the two victims without fear of the law. They used bush/knives to repeatedly attack the victims. Despite presence of the people who gathered to see the accident that evening, the accused persons boldly attacked the victims by administering final blows of stab wounds on the two deceased.

67. As I found the killings on the two victims in the present case was quite vicious. There were numerous stab wounds found on the bodies of the two deceased. The present case must be categorized as one of the "worst type" cases of killing.

68. The killing of the two deceased was carried out partly on a moving vehicle and partly after the vehicle had landed on the right side of the road. The two accused intended to kill the two victims after they failed to hold up the driver so they could take possession on the vehicle to stage a planned armed robbery at the hotel in town. Killing a person in a moving vehicle within the full view of onlookers in my view is a serious killing. The two accused acted bravely in the manner they viciously attacked the deceased.

69. The two accused actions demonstrated complete disregard for human life, the rule of law and safety of members of the travelling public. This kind of killing must be visited with a strong punitive and deterrent sentence.

70. I have considered all mitigating circumstances on behalf of the two accused. It was submitted in their favour that, they are first young offenders without any previous convictions. They have both raised certain mitigations in their statements on allocutus. The court has considered all that they said as well as what their lawyer submitted in mitigations.

71. Obviously, all mitigations submitted in favour of the two accused would significantly fade away due to the serious nature with which the offences were committed. The instant case was a cold-blooded killing in the area and region where Christianity and government and business influence has had a major impact on the lives of people for quite a long time now.

72. It does not make sense to the mind of the court as to why the two accused had to resort to what they did to the victims. All the three victims were innocent persons. You decided to end the lives of the two of them by executing the highest penalty for the offence of wilful murder provided by the law of the land.

73. The Parliament has clearly shown concern over the casual attitude towards life taken by people like the two of you when it reintroduced the maximum penalty of death. This court cannot ignore the law and its intended purpose of retribution and rehabilitation. It is my view the death penalty will not be appropriate in the current case. I consider that the appropriate penalty is life imprisonment. The penalty of the court for the two counts is life imprisonment to be served concurrently.

74. Having passed the life sentence on the two accused, there is no need for me to return to Mr. Rangan’s argument on the mode of executing the death penalty as the sentence in their cases is life imprisonment.

Sentenced accordingly

____________________________

The Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Paul Paraka Lawyers: Lawyer for Accused