866 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ When there is a match obtained, it indicates almost 100% certainty, though in science, theoretically there cannot be a 100% certainty. Further, the match probability obtained in respect of both the identified male and female DNA profile to be a rare profile, consistent with my conclusion that each could only have originated from those identified individuals, unless of course if there is an identical twin, because identical twins have the same and exact DNA profile.’ [29] Suffice it is for this court to say that findings by SP8 can only be said to be definitive as to the DNA profile match-ups and they had pointed to the presence only of the DNA profiles attributable to sources identified as the deceased and the accused. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his findings, nor the propriety of the methodology, namely the polymerase chain reaction (‘PCR’) technique, which he had employed to develop those DNA profiles from the various identified specimens he had received from the police for analysis. He had testified before me that his area of specialisation at the government Chemistry Department, Petaling Jaya, had been DNA profiling analysis and that he had done thousands of such analysis throughout his career as a government chemist. He had explained too that ‘DNA’ stood for deoxyribonucleic acid, a hereditary component found in cells in a human body and that each individual person has a unique DNA profile unless he or she has an identical twin or triplet as sibling(s). Neither did I notice any particularly sustained objections coming from learned counsel on the methodology undertaken by SP8. Based on SP8’s qualifications and vast and long experience in this specialised branch of scientific study, I had no difficulty in treating him as an expert witness on DNA profiling and its related areas. I had also therefore no difficulty in accepting his independent testimony as adduced before this court by him as credible. In essence, his evidence had to as very far extent, established the very crucial factum, namely that the accused was present at the scene of these crimes, which includes the body of the deceased as this case involved an alleged offence of rape of the deceased. There have been authorities saying that in a case of rape, the scene of the crime includes the very corpus of the victim. Looking at the probability that the DNA profiles of the accused might be the same as that of another Malay male, namely at 1 in 110 quintillion, such probability can only be surmised as very remote, if not totally impossible. It must be noted that it was never suggested to the investigating officer (SP17) neither to SP8 that the accused had a twin brother. As such, the presence of the accused at the scene of crime had been satisfactorily established through the presence of his genetic fingerprints on the critical items found at the scene, although from the evidence adduced, apart from the evidence of SP11, who said he saw the accused and the deceased at about 2.30pm on that day, nobody had seen both of them inside SP4’s room when these offences were committed. [30] Learned counsel had contended that from the reading of the testimony of Lance Corporal Malik Basiron (‘SP18’), there was no mention of Roslan A B C D E F G H I