[2007] 1 MLRA Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal 701 rests on the twin pillars of reliability and accuracy. Accordingly, the first question that a court must ask itself is this: Did the accused ever make a discovery statement? This turns on the credibility of the policeman who gives evidence of the discovery statement. If the court is satisfied that the first question must be answered in the negative, that is to say, that the alleged statement is a fabrication, then that is the end of the matter and no further steps in the inquiry are necessary. But if the court decides that the first question should receive an affirmative response, then it must ask itself the second question. Is the version of the discovery statement put forward by the policeman giving evidence of it accurate enough to be acted upon? If the accuracy of the statement is in doubt then it should be rejected. Otherwise it should be accepted. [25] Both questions are fact sensitive and judges by their training have little or no difficulty in resolving such questions. Once the trier of fact has arrived at a conclusion one way or the other on either or both of these questions, his or her view is entitled to be respected by an appellate court and should not be disturbed unless there has been no judicial appreciation of the evidence. [26] Pang Chee Meng v. Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLRA 608; [1992] 1 MLJ 137; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 265 , affirms the credibility requirement. In that case, Abdul Hamid Omar LP when delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court said that: ... courts should be very vigilant to ensure the credibility of evidence by the police personnel in respect of this section, which is so vulnerable to abuse. (emphasis added.) [27] Sum Kum Seng v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLRA 746 ; [1981] 1 MLJ 244 underpins the second requirement of accuracy. There, Chang Min Tat FJ said: The fact that the information was told the trial court in substance does not, per se, make it inadmissible. All the more so, when, as it so clearly appears in this case, it was only in indirect speech and it was so close to the direct that there was no apparent difference. 'The accused admitted burying weapons somewhere and offered to show me the place' is but an indirect rendering and not a paraphrase or a substitution of "I have buried weapons somewhere and I can show you the place." ... [W]hile there is no strict necessity at law to give the actual words used by an accused person in supplying the information that led to the discovery of a fact or thing and comes within the provisions of section 27 , both the decisions referred to and commonsense stress the desirability that the actual words be recorded somewhere. The record is also as much for the protection of the particular officer concerned, be he the investigating or the interrogating officer, as for the purpose of determining its admissibility. We believe all police officers carry note books with them and we see no practical difficulty of