[2011] 7 MLJ A B C Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 869 THE COURT’S RULING AT END OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE [32] From the above inferences, it is my finding that the ingredients of s 300 of the Penal Code had been established by the prosecution in this case. The intention to kill could be amply inferred from the physical evidence which were recovered from the scene in the form of the bloodied electric iron (‘P10B’) and the raffia string which was also bloodied marked ‘E5’, swab from knife sheath marked ‘E4’, all of which had been confirmed to be a mixed DNA profile originating from at least one female and one male source. The sources represented by blood stains specimen marked ‘E16’ (Siti Zawiah bte Sudin) and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ (Muhammad Rasid) were consistent with being the female and male contributor respectively, through the mixed profile. All these bloodied items could only be indicative of violence having taken place at the scene of the crimes. D E F G H I [33] The serious injuries sustained by the deceased were classified as defensive wounds by the pathologist (SP5) evidencing grave assault having been perpetrated on her. The fact that her head injury was found to be consistent with an injury that could be caused by the P10B (the electric iron) had connected the offence to the accused as the DNA profile developed from the blood specimen retrieved from P10B had revealed to be a mixed DNA profile originating from the accused and the deceased. The nature of the injury on the head of the deceased and the fact that it was caused to the head, which was a critical part of the human anatomy, must necessarily be interpreted that such injury had been caused with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The blow by the electric iron was so hard that its handle broke. Similarly, according to SP5, the injury to the neck region that had caused the hyoid bone to break had also caused the death of the deceased. As was shown by the evidence of SP8, no DNA profiles belonging to anybody else was traceable from the specimens analysed by him except those belonging to the deceased and the accused person. [34] As regards the evidence pertaining to the offence of rape, similarly I had found sufficient evidence tending to prove that charge as well. At this juncture, perhaps it would be appropriate to restate the legal position as regards the proof required of the prosecution to prove the commission of the offence of rape by an accused person. For the purpose, to my mind, a reference must be made to the works of the learned authors entitled, Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21st Ed, p 369), where the learned author has written as follows: ‘Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is, therefore, quite possible to commit