[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 883 must of necessity be viewed as one whole transaction and the totality of the evidence had clearly depicted a scenario whereby the accused had violently assaulted the deceased and totally overwhelmed her before ravishing her against her will. The presence of the broken electric iron (P10B), the bloodied raffia string and the bloodied sheath of a knife, to my mind, plus the messy aftermath in the room, are clearly indicative of a struggle having taken place. I think the words of Azalin bte Aziz (SP4) when describing the how Siti Zawiah had appeared to her summed it all, thus: ‘Seingat saya bila pintu bilik saya telah dibuka, saya lihat Siti Zawiah dalam keadaan terbaring dan kainnya terselak menampakkan kemaluan beliau. Baju juga terselak sehingga ke paras dadanya. Mukanya bengkak dan berdarah dan mulutnya macam dah pecah. Saya merasa amat sedih. Pintu pun ditutup kembali dan Nur Hanani pun talipon Polis.’ No one in his right mind would dare say with a straight face that the sexual intercourse between the deceased and the accused in this case had been consensual. In fact, the gruesome aftermath surrounding this case, as could be seen in the photographs marked as P6(E), P6(H), P6(R), P6(S) and P6(Y) had effectively negated any semblance of a consensual sexual intercourse having taken place in this case between them. [56] In the final analysis, in the light of the overall evidence led in this court, and having applied the test as enumerated by Justice Suffian J (as he then was) it was my finding that this court could not believe the accused’s version of events as enumerated by him in D64. Further, even at the lower threshold of creating a reasonable doubt, this court also found that he had failed to create any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case with respect to both the charges preferred against him. I found that D64 had been conveniently created by the accused as an afterthought, solely for the purpose of trying to exonerate himself from these grave charges that he was facing in this case before this court. G H I [57] It has been said that in order to convict an accused person for murder in a case based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be strong enough, if taken together to make a proverbial rope equally as strong, to hang the accused person. In this case, it was my considered view that the circumstantial evidence as admitted in this court had, taken together, formed a rope strong enough to hang the accused for having murdered Siti Zawiah bte Sudin on the 9 March 2006. That rope was also strong enough to ‘whip’ and imprison the accused for having raped the same Siti Zawiah at the same material time. As earlier alluded by me, the D64 had not been able to cast any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case on both the charges ad contained in P2 and P11. As such, para (d) in Justice Suffian J’s formula in Mat v Public Prosecutor ’s case was triggered in this case, namely that the accused must be convicted on both the charges, namely P2 and P11. As such, I found that the prosecution had