858 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ 4 anak kunci daripada OKT seperti dalam P13(1–4) yang terpompong dalam P13(5).’ The P13(5) has been the ring that held the four keys together into a bunch. [17] SP4 had also identified all the four keys individually and of each, its particular use. According to her, P13(1) was the key to the front grille door; P13(2) was the key to the mangga (padlock) used on the said grille; P13(3) was the key to the front wooden door and P13(4) was the key to the door to her room in the apartment. She had also identified the ring that had held the four keys together (‘P13(5)’). Her positive identification on the said four eyes and the ring used to keep them in a bunch showed that the said keys were her set of keys. How could that set of keys of hers be in the possession of the accused when SP4 had given them to the deceased, not to him? The circumstances surrounding the positive identification of all the 4 keys (P13(1–4)) and P13(5) by SP4 led this court to infer that the accused must have taken the said keys from the possession of the deceased and that he must be the person who had locked up the doors to the apartment before SP4 had arrived at the same apartment on the fateful night. In the context of evidence as laid out in this case by the prosecution witnesses, it would have been impossible for the deceased to have locked all the doors because, no keys were found in the room where she was found lying on the floor writhing and groaning in pain by her friends namely, SP3 and SP4, in the early morning of the 10 of March 2006. On the contrary, it was the uncontroverted evidence of SP6, the arresting officer, that he had seized the bunch of keys (P13(1–4)) together with a ring (P13(5)) that held them together, from the accused, and which were identified by SP4 in this court positively and without much difficulty. [18] It was also in the evidence of SP6, the said arresting officer that the accused had tried to escape arrest by the police. He had said in his testimony, as follows: ‘Semasa saya buat serbuan, OKT saya lihat sedang cuba melarikan diri ke arah bahagian belakang rumah tersebut, tetapi anggota saya telah buat persiapan dengan mengepung pintu bahagian belakang rumah itu, iaitu di bahagian laur pintu belakang rumah itu. Saya telah sediakan 2 orang anggota untuk buat kepungan di situ.’ Under cross-examination by learned counsel, SP6 had stood his ground on this issue. I had no reason to doubt SP6’s evidence. Although the evidence of conduct as envisaged under s 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 may be relevant as proof of the guilty state of mind of an accused person, taken alone it may not be unequivocal evidence thereof. But if it is taken together with other available evidence before the court, its probative value will invariably be greatly enhanced towards establishing the same. In this case, add to it the fact of the accused attempt to take flight, the fact that the accused had also been found, in his trousers pocket upon arrest, the bunch of A B C D E F G H I