SC2730
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]
SCRA 13 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
PATRICK SUMA
Appellant
AND:
THE STATE
Respondent
WAIGANI: MOGISH J, MANUHU J, GEITA J
30 APRIL, 2 MAY 2025
SUPREME COURT – Appeal against conviction – Contradictory evidence –
Absence of ballistic evidence – Trial judge was in a better position to weigh the
evidence and make findings of fact.
Cases cited
John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115
Ambrose Lati v The State (2015) SC1413
Balbal v The State [2007] SC860
Counsel
F. Kuvi, for the appellant
J. Tugah, for the respondent
1. BY THE COURT: The Appellant, a police officer, was found guilty of
murder after a trial and was sentenced to 18 years in hard labour. This is his
appeal against conviction only.
2. On an appeal against conviction, the Supreme Court shall allow the appeal
where the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory; the conviction was based on a
wrong decision on a question of law; or where there was a material irregularity
in the course of the trial: s. 23 (1) of the Supreme Court Act. See John Beng v
The State [1977] PNGLR 115 and Ambrose Lati v The State (2015) SC 1413.
3. It was alleged that on a Sunday afternoon, at Turubu Oil Palm Estate,
Wewak, East Sepik Province, the deceased was with others fixing a motor
vehicle when a fight broke out between people who were playing volleyball.
The deceased went to see the fight. The Appellant, who was engaged to provide
security for the oil palm company, confronted the Appellant. He was shot and
killed moments later by the Appellant at the back of a house between 6.00pm
and 7.00pm.
4. The Appellant argued firstly that the trial judge erred in convicting upon
contradictory identification evidence of three State witnesses. It was secondly
argued that the trial judge erred in convicting the appellant when there was no
ballistic evidence linking the firearm to the fatal injury.
5. The first argument was made by defence counsel before the trial judge. At
page 54 of the Appeal Book, it was submitted that Hazel Bina’s evidence
contradicted the evidence of Ronald Bina. Hazel Bina said she followed the
Appellant who was pursuing the deceased to the back of the house where she
saw the Appellant shot the deceased with a gun. On the other hand, Ronald
Bina said that at the relevant point in time, he and Hazel Bina were in the
kitchen, and she did not go anywhere.
6. The trial judge’s discussion of the evidence is in pages 160 to 165. On
page 166, the trial judge set out the disputed and undisputed facts. The trial
judge then analysed the evidence and accepted the evidence of the State
witnesses. In relation to the contradiction in Hazel Bina’s evidence, at page
169, the trial judge addressed it, thus:
“The Defence’s submission questioning the credibility of evidence by the
state witnesses and asserting that they were contradicting, however does
not outweigh the entirety of the evidence establishing the identification
and the fire of the gunshot which caused the death of the deceased.
Further, the Defence’s submission that ...Hazel Bina was inside the
kitchen and had not gone out or seen the accused assaulting and shooting
the deceased but only heard gun shots is technically incorrect, given her
evidence that she came out of the kitchen before the accused assaulted the
deceased. During examination in chief, she clearly said that she left the
kitchen and went out to see who was firing the gunshots and recognized
the accused assaulting her ‘small’ father (deceased) which caused her to
cry, even more, the accused cursed her saying profane words.
Nevertheless, she gave evidence confidently that she followed the
accused, some metres behind and saw the accused pulling down his gun
and shooting the deceased...(sic.)” (Our underlining)
7. The trial judge eventually found that the “identification of the accused is
established with credible evidence.”
8. We are of the view that the trial judge did consider the contradiction and
accepted the evidence of Hazel Bina who identified the Appellant as the killer.
He was in a better position to weigh the evidence and make the appropriate
findings of fact as he had so done. See for example Balbal v The State [2007]
SC860.
9. Accordingly, the first argument is without merit.
10. In relation to the argument on absence of ballistic evidence, no case
authority was cited by the Appellant. The trial judge considered the issue
adequately in four paragraphs on page 170, where he said:
“...the essence of this issue boils down to the person who actually entered
into the yard, and walked further into the kitchen area, and fired the third
gun shot. There is no other evidence from Defence supporting that there
were other armed policemen inside the property, except the accused.”
11. The trial judge concluded that the argument on the absence of ballistic
evidence “does not hold water.”
12. Consistently, according to the medical evidence, “the Autopsy Finding
seen at the time of Autopsy showed no evidence of any medical condition that is
likely to cause the death of this man except the evidence of a gunshot wound
totally ripping off the muscles in the biceps region of the left arm destroying the
blood vessels and the nerves in the axillar region.”
13. In all the circumstances, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that
ballistic evidence is not necessary. Hazel Bina’s evidence was corroborated by
the medical evidence. The second argument also fails on that basis.
14. We are, ultimately, of the view that the appeal lacks merit and should be
dismissed. We so order.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the appellant: Kuvi & Associates
Lawyer for the Respondent: Acting Public Prosecutor
