Regina v Sutarake [1993] SBHC 27; HC-CRC 059 of 1993 (21 October 1993)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 59 of 1993

REGINA

-v-

MARTIN SUTARAKE

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria CJ.)

Hearing:
Judgment: 21st October 1993

DPP for Prosecution
C Tagaranian for Defendant

MURIA CJ: The accused, Martin Sutrarake, has been charged with the crime of murder. It was alleged that he murdered Salome Oineri on 30/3/92 at Poinaho, Guadalcanal Province.

I remind myself that the onus of proving the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and that must be done beyond reasonable doubt. Also the prosecution must established its case to the required standard based on the evidence put before the court. If I have any doubt about the guilt of the accused, I must acquit him.

The evidence for the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased were brother and sister, born from the same father and mother. The deceased was the first born in the family.

During the month of March 1992, the accused had been living alone in his house. His wife had left him because of ill-treatment by him and had been staying with her relatives.

During this period when the accused was living on his own he would, on many occasions, go to the deceased house and demanded that she (deceased) cooked for him. If the deceased refused, the accused would hit her. On these occasions the accused was under the influence of alcohol.

On other occasions the accused would ask the deceased for money and if the deceased did not give him money she would hit her. On a number of these occasions the deceased had to flee to nearby neighbours for safety.

Sylvia Houma(PW6) gave evidence that the accused had very often come to her mother's (deceased) house and many times the accused hit her mother (deceased). The accused would hit her with his hands and sometimes with a spear which was normally used for diving. The spear was of a type with a strong wire (about 1 cm in diameter and 3 feet long) attached to one end of the stick which would be twice as long as the wire itself.

PW6 further testified that she heard the accused said that he would kill the deceased before he was satisfied. She also said in evidence in court that the last time that the accused had an argument with the deceased was on Saturday 28/3/92.

According to PW6, her mother (deceased) went to the Clinic at Manikaraku at about 8.00 am on 30/3/92 with the deceased's little daughter. They returned to Poinaho at 12.00 noon.

After having some food, the deceased left to go to the garden between 12.30 pm and 1.00 pm taking with her a home basket, a sharp pointed bush knife, a smoking pipe and a purse containing $60.00 to $70.00 in it.

PW6 further testified that in the morning of 30/3/92 she did not see the accused. She said that it was in the later afternoon, about 4.00 pm that she saw the accused washing himself and having his shower at a nearby water-tap, close to the accused's house. After that the accused came past her house. PW6 noticed that the accused tied a piece of cloth around his head. He the left with Edmond Ramo to the garden.

PW6 said that it was the accused who told her that her mother was killed by someone. The accused told her that as it was going toward evening that day.

The deceased's knife and purse had not been found.

The evidence about the deceased, prior to her death, that she would at times run to the nearby neighbours for safety was confirmed by Joseph Asitaha (PW1) Fred Mae (PW8). Both witness stated that the deceased ran to their respective houses in the middle of the night fleeing from the accused who wanted to beat her up.

PW1: gave evidence of the two occasions in March 1992 when the deceased ran to his house for safety when the accused wanted to spear her with a diving spear. The second time was just the week before the deceased was killed.

PW8 gave evidence that he knew of four(4) occasions when the accused wanted to "kill" the deceased. The first occasion was in 1991 when the deceased ran to PW8's house because the accused wanted to "kill" her for not giving him money. Again this was in the middle of the night at about 11.00 pm. The second time was again at night when he (PW8) heard the deceased cried. PW8 ran to the deceased's house and saw the accused punched the deceased and threw her to the ground. PW8 saw the accused holding a diving spear with the intention of putting the spear through the deceased's stomach as she was lying down and crying on the ground.

In February 1992 and March 1992 PW8 also had to take in the deceased to his house because the accused hit her. Again on each of these occasions, it was about midnight when the deceased ran to PW8's house.

PW8 further testified that sometime between 1.00 pm and 1.30 pm on 30/3/92 he had his wife left their Village at Komunikao and went to their garden following the road toward Hunihasu Bridge. It was when they were at the bridge about then (10) minutes later that they met the accused coming from the opposite direction and returning back to the village.

Daniel Oneimara (PW9) is the real brother of the accused. PW9 gave evidence that he and his wife went to the garden on 30/3/92 between 1.00pm and 2.00 pm. They were in the bush going toward one Kanuto's garden when they heard someone sneezing among the bushes. PW9 then left his wife and went to check who it was that was sneezing among the bushes. He was bout 10 metres away when he saw the accused emerging out from a bush track. As soon as the accused saw PW9, the accused dodged and ran away. PW9 found that behaviour of his brother to be strange at the time. PW9 confirmed that the small bush track followed by the accused at the time, also led to the place where the deceased's body was found.

The other account of the whereabouts of the accused on 30/3/92 came from Athnasius Oneimara (PW10) when he testified in Court. PW10 said in evidence that he saw the deceased going toward Manikaraku at about 8.00 am that morning of the 30/3/92. Shortly after that, PW10 saw the accused also followed Manikaraku direction. The accused however stopped for a while at PW10's house before proceeding on to Manikaraku. At about 11.00 am the accused returned from Manikaraku and on the way stopped again at PW10's house before proceeding to his house.

The third time that PW10 saw the accused that day on 30/3/92 was at about 2.00 pm. At that time the accused appeared at PW10's house, not coming from the direction of the road but coming from the bush side behind the house. PW10 saw the accused's behaviour when he came that third time to be strange. The accused did not talk to PW10 and appeared to be restless and worried. The accused's eyes were 'shaking'. The accused did not wear shirt then. Instead he tied his shirt around his head.

There were bush tracks coming out from the bush side of PW10's house. Those bush tracks led to the gardens behind the Village. It was the same area where Kanuto's garden was, the garden to which PW9 and his wife were going when PW9 saw the accused in the bush.

When PW9 saw the accused in the bush, he (the accused) was wearing a black pant and a singlet. When PW8 and his wife met the accused at his wife met the accused at the bridge sometime after 1.30 pm or thereabout, the accused was wearing a pant black in colour with some colours stripes on it. When the accused emerged from the bush-side of PW10's house, the accused was wearing a black pant but the shirt was not worn, instead it was tied around his head.

The fourth time that the accused turned up at PW10's house was in the evening. When he came to ask for a pig for the occasion of the death of the deceased.

On the same day also Dotra Kikolo (PW11) and one David Natei met the deceased at the Hunihasu Bridge. There was also a little boy who was some distance behind the deceased.

PW11 and his friend continued on to their Village (Karipopora). While they were at their house, the deceased came past. PW11 saw the deceased went past his house. About half an house alter, PW11 also came past PW11's house and followed the same direction as that taken by the deceased.

Having rested for sometime, PW11 then went to climb some coconuts. PW11 was at the bridge when he saw the accused returning back to the village. When PW11 asked the accused to join him, the accused refused and went away.

In the latter part of the afternoon of 30/3/92 Agatha Hirupu (PW12) saw the accused washing and scrubbing his black pant at a water-supply tap. PW12 described the short pant as black with something like colour stripes on it. PW12 then saw the accused had his shower.

Edmond Ramo (PW13) was the little boy who accompanied the accused to the garden in the late afternoon after the accused had his shower.

The accused story was that after returning from the clinic that morning on 30/3/92, he rested in his house and later washed his clothes before accompanying the three children, Ramo, Steward and Pohoa to the garden to join with other people hoeing Stephen's (PW15) garden. The accused denied going anywhere else from the time he returned from the Manikaraku Clinic until the time he and the children went to the garden in the later afternoon.

The accused agreed he wore black pant and black T-Shirt in the morning but said that he wore the same ones after he had his shower in the afternoon.

The accused agreed that PW12 saw him having his shower from the water-supply tap. Every body from the village had already gone to the garden at the time.

The accused denied going to PW10's house four times. He said he only went to PW10's house once and that was probably about 2.30 pm. The accused agree he was wearing the same clothes that he wore in the morning when he came to PW10's house at about 2.30 pm.

When the accused and the children left to go to the garden it was already after 3.30 pm that afternoon. That clearly must be correct as Ben Panoisiri (PW14) put the time as about 3.00 pm when the accused joined the people in the garden.

The accused also denied being seen by PW9 in the bush in the early part of the afternoon.

The accused insisted that the injury to his head was caused by the spikes of Rakasi's (PW5)'s soccer boot.

P.C Muaki (PW3) and Aimmy Enock (PW2) saw the accused on the morning of 30/3/92. PW2 saw the accused at the clinic and testified that the accused only had minor scratches on his right knees which were caused by a fall at a soccer match the previous day (29/3/92). There was no other injuries on the accused's body.

PW3 saw the accused at police station and had an interview with him about another earlier incident for about half an house. Again the police officer only saw the scratches on the accused's right knees. There was no other sign of injuries anywhere else on the body of the accused.

On 31/3/92 when PW3 again saw the accused at police station in connection with the alleged murder of the deceased, PW3 then saw the accused's hand swollen and a piece of calico was tied around the accused's head. When PW3 told the accused to remove the piece of calico around his head, PW3 saw a fresh cut on the accused's head. PW3 said that on 30/3/92 when he saw the accused there was no wound on the accused's head.

PW4 and PW5 who played soccer against the accused's team on 29/3/92 denied seeing any injuries at on the accused's head. PW5 gave evidence that he never kicked the accused's head with his soccer boots.

When one considers all these evidence, it is obvious that the evidence of PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, and PW11 clearly put the accused within the scene of the murder. The accused was the only person who was seen by the witnesses, PFW7, PW8, and PW11, to have been in close proximity with the deceased before her death. PW9 and PW10 clearly put the accused in immediate proximity to the deceased after her death.

The evidence of PW6, PW12 and PW13 show what the accused did after 2.00 pm and before 4.00 pm that day. That was, the accused having returned from the bush (as seen by PW11, PW10, and PW9) went back to the village had his shower, washed his clothes, changed his clothes and then went to join the other people in the garden at about 3.30 pm.

Between 12.30 pm and 2.30 pm the accused was the only person who was close to the deceased both in point of time and distance. There was no other person. The evidence of Dotra Kikolo, Daniel Oneimara and Athnasius Oneimara when put together with that Sylvia Houma, Clementina Pukera, Agatha Kirupu and Edmond Ramo are so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from all those evidence is that the accused was the person responsible for the death of the deceased. There can be no other conclusion.

The story about the injury to the accused's head being caused by Rakasi's soccer boot is clearly one that no reasonable tribunal of fact would accept. The evidence of the nurse Aimmy Enock and that of P.C. Muaki clearly show that the accused was telling lies about the injuries to his head. There was no such injury to the accused's head on the morning of 30/3/92. But there was certainly one in the afternoon because other people saw it in the afternoon in the garden and PC Muaki saw it the next day 31/3/92.

To add to the circumstances pointing toward the accused as to the commission of the offence, the evidence of PW1, PW6, PW8 and PW14 shows that prior the decease's death, the accused had been in constant row and fights with the deceased. The evidence established that the reasons for those arguments and fights were due to the accused's pestering of the deceased for money, and for food. There was also suggestion that the accused was interested in the deceased sexually which also caused some fights.

The previous assaults on the deceased by the accused were of serious nature as can be seen from the evidence of PW1, PW6, & PW8. That is no surprise. The accused had earlier on been charged for Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm upon his wife.

The evidence in this case shows that during the occasions when the accused had quarrels with the deceased prior to her death, the accused had clear inclination to cause serious harm to the deceased. This can be seen from the evidence of Joseph Asitaha, Sylvia Houma and Fred Mae who all gave evidence of the assault on and aggressive behaviour toward the deceased on the various occasions before her death.

The doctor's report (Exh. A) reveals that there were two (2) large deep cuts to the neck most likely to be caused by a bush knife and four(4) stab wounds from a long thin knife. The two deep cuts were, firstly to the front of the neck and which had cut right through the larynx above the thyroid cartilage and secondly, to the back of the neck penetrating close to the spinal cord.

Either of the two deep wounds could have killed the deceased. The four stab wounds were to the left upper arm, the left of the groin; the middle of the chest; and the right side of the neck.

The medical report shows that whoever caused those wounds upon the body of the deceased resulting in her death must have done so viciously. Looking at the photographs (Exh.B) and the medical report, the only description that befits the actions of the doer of those fatal wounds is that they were of a cruel, callous and a ruthless maniac. The wounds displayed a clear evidence of malice of the worst kind on the part of the perpetrator of this crime.

I have observed the accused gave his evidence in Court and I simply do not believe his story. His story lacks coherence and does not have the ring of truth in it.

The wound on the accused's head did not come from Rakasi's soccer boot on 29/3/92. That wound was caused by a sharp bladed instrument namely a knife. The only reasonable conclusion is that the accused received that would during the struggle with the deceased before he overpowered her.

What he told the Court is his desperate attempt to run away from the truth.

Having pieced together all the evidence brought before this court in this case, the perpetrator of the crime with which we are concerned here points to one person, and one person only. That person is the accused who is now before the Court.

I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who caused the death of the deceased and that he did so with the clearest of malice. That is murder.

I find the accused guilty and I convict him of the crime of murder.

(G.J.B. Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE