[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 871 eliminated the evidence of anybody else being present at the scene of crime, apart from the accused and the deceased only. The DNA profiles developed from the specimens retrieved crucial exhibits found at the crime scene in this case were established by SP8 as having been contributed by two sources only namely, the accused and the deceased. [35] I had subjected these evidence and the credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution to a maximum evaluation as envisaged by the Court of Appeal decision in Looi Kow Chai & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2003] 2 MLJ 65; [2003] 1 CLJ 734 and at the end of such exercise, it is my finding that the prosecution had through its witnesses established a prima facie case against the accused on both the charges, as appear in P2 for murder and, in P11 for rape. [36] Perhaps it would be helpful to put in perspective the true import of the all-important 2 Latin words in our criminal jurisprudence, namely the unassuming duo: prima facie. It is not only important to do that for the purpose of ascertaining whether the prosecution had established such a case that would justify the court to call for the defence in a charge, but from the point of view of the defence as well, a sound understanding of that term would assist counsel in ascertaining the kind of evidence that may be required to rebut the evidence thus far adduced by the established case by the prosecution. For that purpose then, I would like to quote the words of Justice Buhagiar J in the case Saminathan & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1955] MLJ 121 which go as follows: ‘A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficiently strong evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side.’ The very same essence was reiterated by learned Justice Augustine Paul FCJ in the case of Balachandran v Public Prosecutor [2005] 2 MLJ 301 where he said when delivering the judgement of the Federal Court thus: ‘A prima facie case is therefore on that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can only be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal.’ [37] On account of the above, this court had therefore ordered the accused to enter on his defence to both the said charges preferred against him in P2 and P11. I THE DEFENCE [38] The accused was informed by this court of the three rights open to him upon him being called to enter on his defence and he had opted to give a