[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 875 been established to be that of the accused person might belong to another related Malay male, based on the available Malaysian Malay population database kept by the government chemist department was 1 in 110 quintillion. That, to my mind, is one heck of a most remote probability of it ever happening. In common parlance that would be the same as saying that it would be next to being impossibility, unless of course the accused had a twin brother, in fact which was never even suggested by the defence throughout the entire duration of this trial, to exist. In his testimony also, the chemist (SP8) had found the partial DNA profile developed from the bloodstain developed on the electric iron ‘E6’ to be a mixed profile consistent with having come from the sources represented bloodstained specimen ‘E16’ belonging to the deceased and blood specimen marked ‘E24’ belonging to the accused person. According to the evidence of the pathologist Dr Mohd Shah bin Mahmood (SP5) who had performed the post mortem on the deceased the injury sustained by the deceased on her head, was consistent with injuries that could be caused by an electric iron. SP5 had testified in this court that the electric iron marked as P10(B) would be capable of causing such an injury as sustained the deceased on her head. According to SP5, that injury had caused bleeding underneath the membrane of the brain as well as bleeding in the brain tissue of the deceased causing death to occur. When questioned by the learned DPP, SP5 had said that such injury sustained by the deceased on her head could have been inflicted by using the said electric iron. Now, we had seen that the said electric iron (P10(B)) had mixed bloodstains (E6) on it, which on analysis by the chemist (SP8) had belonged to both the deceased and the accused person in this case. In cross-examination by learned counsel, SP5 agreed that the P10(B) was on object that could have caused the said injury. The only reasonable inference that this court could draw from such a circumstance such as this is that there must have been a struggle between the deceased and the accused person when the accused had the P10(B) in his hand and that the accused must have sustained and injury along the way, such that their bloodstains must have become mixed in the process and that the same bloodstains had become stuck to part of P10(B). That would support the finding made by SP5 that the said injury sustained by the deceased was not self-inflicted by her. This piece of independent evidence coming from the government chemist (SP8) has completely debunked the accused version of event when he said that he had nothing to do with the injury sustained by the deceased on her forehead. If one were to recall, the accused had said in D64 that when he came to, he saw blood dripping from the deceased’s head. In other words, he had nothing to do with that injury, let alone how it had been caused nor that he had a hand in having caused it. It must also be brought to bear as well that according to the owner of the P10(B) namely Zalina bte Aziz (SP4) when the P10(B) was shown to her in court, this is what she said: ‘Sekarang ada kesan pecah padanya. Pada wire putih telah ada kesan warna coklat, dan juga ada tanda-tanda kehitaman (nak, nak hitam) pada wire itu.’ On record, there has been no cross-examination on this factual assertion. From that piece of evidence, to my mind, the only reasonable