454 Malayan Law Journal [2010] 4 MLJ produce it, is misconceived, and has failed totally to enhance his defence. The fact that his own counsel had suggested to SP17, in cross-examination, that the fourth child had changed his shirt inside the car and not at SP17’s house, flies in the face of the defence of the fourth child. SP17 had testified that he saw blood stains on the fourth child’s shirt, and that after the fourth child had his bath he wore SP17’s shirt. The testimony of the fourth child, that the original blue T-shirt worn by him on the night of the incident, was seized by the police on 13 November 2003 from his house, but was not produced in court cannot be believed. There was no suggestion to the IO that a blue T-shirt, worn by the fourth child on the night of the incident, was seized by the police on 13 November 2003. It was never suggested to the IO (SP23) that the said blue T-shirt was the very same T-shirt worn by the fourth child at/or about the time of the alleged crime. It was never suggested to the IO that the said blue T-shirt was never sent to the chemist. It was never suggested that the said blue T-shirt did not bear any blood stains matching the DNA profile of the deceased. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the police did not in fact go to the house of the fourth child on 13 November 2003, nor did the police seize a blue T-shirt from the house. On the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the fourth child did in fact change his shirt after a bath at SP17’s house, and that there were blood stains on his original T-shirt. In such circumstances, it is my finding that the fourth child was inside the house of the deceased, at the time the deceased was attacked with a parang (exh P22). [34] A similar vein in the defence could also be seen in respect of ID51 which was then ruled admissible by the HC judge as an exhibit to establish that at the time of purchase of the parang exh P22 the cashier was SP5. The HC judge made a determination that ID51 (now P51) is admissible pursuant to s 90A of the Evidence Act 1950. In this case not only the cashier but the proprietor of the shop SP7 also testified as a witness. SP24 is the witness who found the parang and had given an evidence that on the parang there is a sticker found on the parang. Such sticker inscribed with the words ‘ha-DIYs’ is identical with the stickers found on the parangs sold from the shop operated by PW7. P51 indicates the name of the cashier, date and time of purchase of the parang. There are suggestions that since exh P51 does not state the number of the parang 80126 hence no link is provided to P22 (the weapon covered with blood). The fact that bar code 8184284 found on P22 is also stuck on every parang does not refute the fact that a parang bearing such a bar code was purchased and paid for by the first appellant. Nothing was asked about other parangs that could have different numbers. Here again the HC judge having heard the witnesses and based on his ruling that exh P51 is the receipt issued by the shop ha-DIY accepted that P22 is a parang brought from the shop. On the parang is identified blood stains the DNA of which matches with that of the deceased. We do not find that there is a material flaw in this finding. A B C D E F G H I