878 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ and analysed by SP8 on the exhibits. Such insinuation by the accused was a mere creation by him indeed and it had not cast any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The DNA profiling had which had remained uncontroverted, had effectively eliminated Roslan’s involvement in his case. Instead, from the independent evidence of SP8, the DNA profiles originating from the accused person had been found on most of the incriminating exhibits found by the police forensic team (CSI team) at the crime scene. In other words, the evidence had thus far shown that there had been quite a generous sprinkling of the accused’s genetic fingerprints having been found to have been mixed with those of the deceased which inevitably must be taken, and justifiably so I must add, as damning against him. [48] Learned counsel had also contended that the failure by the prosecution to produce fingerprints of the accused must necessarily be fatal against the prosecution. A short shrift to that can be found in the speech by Justice Chong Siew Fai CJ (Sabah and Sarawak) in the case of Pendakwa Raya v Mansor bin Mohd Rashid [1996] 3 MLJ 560 (FC), where he was of the considered view that if they already existed sufficient positive evidence of the accused’s identity, then the need for fingerprint evidence would not necessarily arise. In today’s world of advanced forensic science, positive identification on a person can be achieved by way of techniques other than the ‘traditional’ mode of physical fingerprint uplifting and the comparisons made thereafter. Indeed, in the light the advent of DNA profiling technique, I ought not to be faulted if I were to offer the view that fingerprinting as the preferred mode of detecting criminals in and investigation, may well have past its heyday. In certain cases, in the absence of any other positive evidence relating to the identification of an accused person, fingerprint evidence may indeed prove to be critical and even conclusive in establishing as a fact such identity. But it is not in all criminal cases that the law of the land casts the obligation on the prosecution to adduce fingerprint evidence without fail. In this case, the presence of the overwhelming evidence in the form of positive mixed DNA profile match-up between the accused and the deceased, as per the uncontroverted testimony of SP8, has rendered the absence of physical fingerprints of the accused rather inconsequential, to say the least. There is also the evidence of SP11, Encik Sukri Palatturi, the off-duty security guard who said that he saw the accused at the staircase near the front area of the apartment unit in the afternoon of the date in question and so near in point of time to the time stipulated in the preferred charges against the accused, where the deceased was staying then with her friends Nurhanani Abdul Halim (SP3) and Zalina be Aziz (SP4). The piece of evidence which this court had accepted, as an established fact, had enhanced the high probability that the accused was indeed with the deceased during the time as stipulated in the said two charges. I therefore could see not much merit in the contention raised by learned counsel in that regard. On the contrary, when read and taken together, the uncontroverted evidence of SP8 (the A B C D E F G H I