State v Puni [2025] PGNC 400; N11536 (20 October 2025)

N11536

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 137 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

BOSS PUNI

WABAG: ELLIS J
20 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – MURDER - s. 300(1)(a) CCA – Plea – offender struck his wife in the neck with a knife – wound 9cm wide and 9cm deep – allowance made for plea and the offence involving a relative – 16 years IHL.

Brief facts
The offender, after drinking about ten bottles of beer, struck the victim in the neck with a knife. In his record of interview, he said he did not mean to kill her.

Held
(1) Charge of murder assessed as Category 2 by reference to Kovi.
(2) Sentence at low end of range of 16 to 20 years imposed.

Cases cited
Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
State v Londari (2025) N11530

Counsel
J.Kesan for the State
Boss Puni, the defendant, in person

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Boss Puni, of Kembos village in Laiagam in Enga Province, was committed for trial on a charge of murder. He entered a plea of guilty in response to a charge of murder, based on section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
   
2. Section 300, so far as is presently relevant, provides as follows:
   

(1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder:-

(a) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed ...

Procedure

3. About two weeks prior to today, the Court received a letter from the Office of the Public Solicitor to say that no application for representation had been received from the accused with the result that he should either retain a private lawyer or represent himself. The Court immediately sent a letter to the accused, setting out his options and urging him to consider his position since his trial would not be delayed if he chose to take no steps to be legally represented.
   
4. At the outset of today’s hearing, the accused indicated that he would be self-represented. As a result, each step of the proceedings was explained to him. When the indictment was read, the response of the accused was “It was an accident”. When that was clarified, it became clear that the accused admitted killing the victim but claimed that he did not intend to kill her.
   

Allocutus

5. Since the uncontested evidence upon which the State relied supported a conviction, a conviction was recorded then the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions. The offender said:
   

“Can this Court give me a fine? Can this Court transfer me out of prison? I am asking, can this Court place me on a good behaviour bond? That is all.”

Evidence

6. The evidence placed before the Court by the State was as listed below:
   

Exhibit A Autopsy report

Exhibit B Record of interview

Exhibit C s 96 statement

Exbibit D Page containing photos of the scene

Exhibit E Page containing a sketch map

Exhibit F Antecedent report

7. The offender did not object to the tender of any of those documents and no evidence was relied on by the offender in the sentence hearing.
   

Submissions of the offender

8. The offender said he had no intention to kill his wife, claiming that she struck him with a knife and he “accidentally” struck her. He accepted that he had done wrong and asked the Court to reduce the term of his sentence.
   

Prosecution submissions

9. For the State, it was noted that the offender had made admissions in his record of interview and had entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder. It was noted that a life was lost and that the offence of using a knife to kill someone was common. After observing that the maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life, it was submitted that this case fell within what was described as category 2 in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (Kovi), for which the suggested sentencing range was imprisonment for 16 to 20 years. Reference was made to this Court’s recent decision in State v Londari (2025) N11530 (Londari) where a sentence of 16 years was imposed on an offender who struck his wife in the neck with a bush knife, the offender in that case having claimed that he struck his wife before she could strike him.
   

Relevant law

10. Kovi is a Supreme Court judgement with the result that it binds judges at first instance. It provided guidelines for sentencing when the charge is murder, by suggesting sentencing ranges under the following four categories which are set out below:
    

Category 1 12-15 years

Plea No weapons used.
Ordinary cases. Little or no pre-planning.
Mitigating factor with Minimum force used.
No aggravating factors. Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2 16-20 years

Trial or plea No strong intent to do GBH.
Mitigating factors with Weapons used.
Aggravating factors. Some pre-planning.
Some element of viciousness.

Category 3 20-30 years

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.
Special aggravating factors. Strong desire to do GBH.
Mitigating factors reduced in Dangerous or offensive weapon used
weight or rendered insignificant eg. gun or axe.
by gravity of offence. Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4 Life imprisonment

Worst case - Trial or plea Pre-meditated attack.
Special aggravating factors. Brutal killing, in cold blood.

11. As the prosecution bears the onus of proof and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, it follows that, when considering the findings of fact before sentencing, any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favour of the offender. In this case, as none of the prosecution witnesses were available to give evidence, the Court was left with the admissions of the offender and the autopsy report as the primary evidence in support of the offence.
    

Findings of fact

12. The Court makes the following findings of fact for the purposes of sentencing this offender:
    

(1) The offender was the husband of the victim.

(2) On the night of 14 June 2024, after he had drunk about ten bottles of beer, there was an argument between the offender and his wife.

(3) Between about 11pm and midnight, the offender struck the victim in the neck with a knife.

(4) The resulting wound, which was 9cm long and 9cm deep, severed two nerves in the left side of the neck, severed the jugular vein, and pierced the carotid artery.

(5) That wound, inflicted by the offender, killed the deceased.

(6) The offender did not intend to kill the victim.

(7) Striking a person anywhere on the body with a knife constitutes an intention to do grievous bodily harm.

Circumstances of the offence

13. In his record of interview, and in the statement which he made during his committal hearing, the offender claimed that his wife (the victim) struck him on the face with a knife and that he then used that knife to strike the victim. Even if the victim struck the offender with a knife, that did not entitle him to then use that knife to strike her in the neck. His suggestion that he “accidentally” stabbed her in the neck cannot sensibly be accepted. What can be accepted is that he did not intend to kill his wife when he struck her with the knife. However, striking another person anywhere on their body with a knife constitutes an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
    

Circumstances of the offender

14. From the record of interview, it appears that offender is in his late 20’s, that he has had three wives, the first two having left him when he married the victim. It appears that, at the time of the offence, he had been married to her for 12 years, during which time there had been a number of arguments. The antecedent report suggests he is of the Lutheran faith, has had no education, and has no prior convictions.
    

Consideration

15. Being a decision of the Supreme Court, Kovi is a decision which binds this Court. While it only provides sentencing guidelines, it is clear those guidelines should be followed unless there are circumstances which clearly warrant a sentence outside the range suggested by that case.
    
16. The use of a weapon, namely a knife, clearly brings this case within category 2, for which the suggested range is imprisonment for 16 to 20 years.
    
17. The decision in Kovi is intended to assist in achieving the objective that like case are treated in a similar manner. This case does resemble the recent case of Londari, being another case where a husband killed his wife, in that case with a bush knife blow to the neck. A sentence of imprisonment for 16 years was imposed in that case.
    
18. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182; SC353 (Apo) is relevant to this case for two reasons. First, because it contains suggestions (in the judgments of Kapi DCJ, as he then was, and Woods J) in support of the proposition that the offender being a relative of the victim is a circumstance relevant to sentencing. Secondly, Apo is authority for the proposition that being under the influence of liquor is not a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.
    
19. It is noted that the offender asked the Court to impose a fine, to release him from custody and to impose a good behaviour bond. Those requests suggested a failure on the part of the offender to appreciate the seriousness of this offence and the need to show greater respect for human life. Those requests must be rejected.
    
20. Having regard to (1) the circumstances of the offence, (2) the circumstances of the offender, including the absence of prior convictions, (3) the early admissions and the plea of guilty, (4) the offence involving the killing of a relative, and (5) the need for deterrence due to the prevalence of deaths caused by the use of knives, especially to strike a blow on the neck of another person, the Court considers the sentence for this offender cannot be reduced below the lower limit of the range set out in Kovi for a murder conviction falling within category 2.
    
21. Clearly, this offender would not now find himself facing a lengthy term of imprisonment if (1) he did not drink beer to the point where his judgement was adversely affected by the influence of liquor, (2) resolved arguments with words and not with a weapon, and (3) he did not use a knife to strike the body of another person. This Court needs to reinforce the message that anyone who strikes the body of another person with a knife can expect to spend a significant number of years in prison.
    

Sentence

22. For those reasons, the Court considers that a sentence of imprisonment for hard labour for 16 years should be imposed. As the offender surrendered to the Police soon after the offence on 14 June 2024, he has spent 1 year 4 months and 1 week in custody prior to today. Deducting that period, gives a period remaining to be served of 14 years, 7 months and 3 weeks.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor