864 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ SP5, the pathologist, from the outer vulva (‘private part’) of the deceased. Lest one forgets, the DNA profile developed from blood specimen marked ‘E24’ was contributed by the accused and which had matched with the DNA profile developed from the specimen from the swab marked ‘E15(e)’ by the SP8. Apart from that, the SP8 had also found a mixed profile from analysis of specimen marked as ‘E15(g)’(P22L) which was retrieved by SP5 from the private part of the deceased described as ‘high vagina’. The reasonable inference that could be derived from these circumstances must be that the accused had penetrated the private part of the deceased and had ejaculated his sperm inside her. With regard to the strangulation that had caused the breaking of the hyoid bone of the deceased, SP5 had said: ‘Patahnya tulang hyoid ini agak flexible. Cekekan tidak semestinya meninggalkan bekas cekekan di kulit leher. Tetapi dalam kes ini, gambar P6(X) menunjukkan satu kecederaan cakaran di tempat no10 dalam gambar itu, di mana kemungkinan si mati cuba melepaskan genggaman cekekan di lehernya oleh penyerangnya.’ From the kind of injuries sustained by the deceased as described by SP5 and as could be seen from the various photographs as alluded by me, as well as the presence of signs of a struggle having taken place in the room, the only reasonable inference that could be deduced therefrom must be a prima facie indication of the non-consensual sexual intercourse between the accused and the deceased. [28] Then of course there had been the evidence of the government chemist (‘SP8’). His evidence is entirely independent in the sense that he was not an eyewitness neither did he go to the scene of the alleged crime. He just received the various exhibits sent by the police of analysis. He had made findings on DNA profiling developed from blood specimens, namely ‘E24’ (accused), ‘E16’ (deceased) and ‘E25’ (Roslan). Throughout his evidence in this court, he had found matching DNA profiles from the mixed profile as being attributable to the accused and deceased as the male and the female contributor on, among others, raffia string (‘E5’) and electric iron (P10B) and swab from sheath marked ‘E4’. Similar mixed DNA profiles findings were also made on the handle of the electric iron, sweat swabs retrieved by SP5 from the deceased’s chest and high vagina. But, on the other hand, the SP8 had found that there was no matching profile developed for Roslan’s DNA profile with any of the DNA profiles developed from the many specimens retrieved from the deceased’s body nor from the numerous items or exhibits at the crime scene. It would be useful to reproduce verbatim to some extent, SP8’s findings as adduced in this court. Instead, all the mixed DNA profiles developed from the various specimens were attributable to only one male contributor and one female contributor, namely the accused (‘E24’) and the deceased (‘E16’), respectively. This is what the chemist SP8 had found in the course of his DNA profiling and analysis of the various specimens sent to him for analysis and matching of the developed profiles found on the items from which the said A B C D E F G H I