874 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ rebut the prima facie case established by the evidence led by the prosecution, and two, whether such evidence had created a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. [43] Looking at what now existed before this court, the answer to the first of the two questions must be in the affirmative. It came in the form of D64, the unsworn statement of the accused. But the answer to the second question, to my mind, could only be ascertained after this court had given due appreciation to D64, as required by the law. I must bear in mind the true nature of D64 as materials properly admitted for consideration by this court. In the case of Mohamed Salleh v Public Prosecutor [1969] 1 MLJ 104, the Federal Court in Singapore had ruled, among others, that although a statement made by the accused person is not a sworn statement, jurors could attach such weight as they think fit and that the jurors should take into account in deciding whether the prosecution had proven their case. In the case of Mohd Abbas bin Danus Baksan v Public Prosecutor [2006] 3 CLJ 880, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) had said that ‘We must treat a direction by a judge of himself in the same way as a direction to a jury’. So, that has to be the way in which this court ought to regard D64 and then to likewise approach it in the context of the whole case. I then would subject the resultant product of such appreciation to the test as set out by Justice Suffian J (as he then was) in the case of Mat v Public Prosecutor [1963] MLJ 263 and look to see whether the accused had succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. [44] In order to properly appreciate that unsworn statement made by the accused from the dock (D64) it ought not however, to be considered in isolation. Rather, it must be juxtaposed side by side with the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses. In so doing, the court must also consider the inherent credibility or otherwise of such statement as contained in D64. This court must also compare it with the credible evidence led by the prosecution especially in the light of the DNA evidence of the government chemist, namely Encik Primulapathi Jaya (SP8) who has over 30 years of experience of doing forensic analyses in his laboratory at the government chemist department. He is an independent witness and if find no reason whatsoever to doubt the integrity of his evidence which basically had consisted of the objective interpretation of what he had observed in his laboratory when he analysed the numerous exhibits pertaining to this case which were sent to him by the police. I have found SP8 to be a credible witness. In his evidence before me, SP8 had testified, among others, that he had upon due analysis, found the blood stain specimen marked as ‘E16’ to belong to the victim in this case, namely the deceased Siti Zawiah bte Sudin. He had also found that the blood specimen marked ‘E24’ to have belonged, upon analysis, to one male contributor namely, Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim, the accused person in this instant case. In this case, the chemist (SP8) had found that the probability that the DNA profile that had A B C D E F G H I