860 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ the scene of crime in the said room had been an electric iron which he also identified in court as the one that had been marked as P10B. [21] The SP4 also gave evidence on the phone calls she said she had made to the deceased at about 6pm on the 9 March 2006 which went unanswered and the replies to her SMSes to which the replies had come such as ‘on the way’, ‘jalan jam’ and ‘hari hujan’. In fact, after sometime, when SP4 called the deceased’s handphone number there was no sound forthcoming from the deceased’s handphone’s end. Among the items seized from the accused by the arresting officer (‘SP6’) had been a Nokia handphone model 3310. When SP4 was shown, during the course of this trial by the learned deputy, the said handphone and when SP4 was asked if she could identify the same, SP4 could say that she knew that the deceased had a Nokia handphone but that she could not recall the specific Nokia model. Her evidence on the handphone has been that when she first entered her room after it was opened by ‘Boy’ that fateful night ‘… saya tidak nampak lagi talipon kepunyaan Siti Zawiah.’ She went on to say, ‘Saya ingat jenama talipon bimbitnya adalah ‘Nokia’, tapi saya tidak ingat modelnya. Saya tidak pasti modelnya.’ And the evidence of SP11, the security guard, had been that by the time he came back to his apartment block at about 5pm on that day, he did not see the accussed and the lady in red T-shirt at the front o the door to apartment unit no 02–04 Blok Kekwa anymore. From these, it could reasonably be inferred that when SP4 called the deceased at about 6pm on that fateful day, the accused had already got possession of the deceased’s handphone. Of course, he could not answer those calls as he did not know SP4. But he could force the deceased to reply to the SMSes that were sent to the deceased by SP4. It is my finding that it was the accused who did in fact instructed the deceased to reply to those SMSes if those answers as said by SP4 were indeed true. I noted that there was no cross-examination on this crucial part of the SP4’s evidence. As such, it must be accepted as true. I had no reason to doubt her evidence on the answers to her SMSes to the deceased on that day. Looking at the circumstances, there was no way that the deceased could, in all probability, be on her way to Rawang town nor for her to say that the road was jammed. It is my finding that all the replies to SP4’s SMSes were lies concocted by the accused. A B C D E F G H [22] A lie can be corroborative of an accused person’s guilty state of mind as can be seen in the case of Syed Ali bin Syed Abdul Hamid & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 132, where Justice Salleh Abas FCJ (as he then was) at p 135, had said as follows: ‘We recall that the accused told PW4 that the purpose of borrowing the car was to go to Terengganu. This was a deliberate lie as he never intended to go to Terengganu at all but to Singapore, which he did. We also recall that he told PW4 that he needed the car for two days. And as such there was no reason at all for him to see PW4 again in the evening of August 15 for permission to use it further on August 15. Such permission was already I