876 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ inference that could be drawn namely that the electric iron was perfect and was not in any way broken or that the white wire cord was not discoloured when she last saw it before this incident. This court had seen that mixed DNA profile attributable to the accused and the deceased had been recovered from that handle to P10(B) and the irresistible inference that ought to be made from that circumstance. [45] While I am still on the matter of human stains and DNA profiling and findings, from the objective conclusions arrived at by the chemist (SP8), it is my finding too, that at the time of the deadly assault perpetrated by this accused on the deceased, the accused was alone. In other words, as no traces of Roslan’s DNA was profiled from the human stains retrieved from the person of the deceased or from the specimens retrieved from the various exhibits recovered at the scene of crime, the accused’s version in D64 that when he came to, he saw Roslan standing by the deceased who was lying on the mattress on the floor, could not, in all probabilities be sustained. Although D64 did not say expressly that Roslan must have been the person responsible for having caused the head injury suffered by the deceased, nevertheless the insinuations were there and were all too clear to be missed. Looking at D64, apart from it saying that Roslan was at the scene of the crime, this court was not able to see anything contained in it that could rebut the evidence of SP8 and SP5. These witnesses have been independent witnesses and from their objectively and scientifically observed facts, there was nothing to suggest that their resultant findings and observations had been actuated by some oblique motive against the accused in this case. They had just reported to this court what they saw in their laboratory or on the autopsy table. The evidence of the chemist SP8 had clearly exonerated Roslan, because pursuant to the DNA analysis done by SP8, there was no matching of Roslan’s DNA profile developed from his blood sample marked ‘E25’ with any DNA profiles developed from the numerous samples sent by the police, particularly, those specimens marked as ‘E6’ which had been established by SP8 as having emanated from the deceased. On the contrary, the chemist SP8 had found in the course of his DNA profiling and analysis of a pattern of result that had pointed to the presence of only the matching of DNA profiles attributable to their respective contributing sources, identified as the accused and the deceased. I had enumerated the findings of SP8 in the course of this judgment in extenso when appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution at the end of its case, when touching on the testimony of this particular witness (SP8). I shall therefore not repeat them here, but suffice it is for me to say that, by and large, the accused’s D64 had not rebutted SP8’s evidence. It was not stated in D64 that the accused had an identical twin. If there was one such identical twin, then in view of SP8’s final conclusion, the latter’s preceding findings on the matchings of the DNA profiles between the deceased and the accused must indeed be open to much scrutiny, even speculation. In that regard, SP8 had said, and I quote his evidence: ‘When there is a match obtained, it indicates almost 100% certainty, though in science, theoretically A B C D E F G H I