[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 877 there cannot be a 100% certainty. Further the match probability obtained in respect of both the identified male and female DNA profile to be a rare profile, consistent with my conclusion that each could only have originated from those identified individuals, unless of course if there is an identical twin, because identical twins have the same and exact DNA profile.’ (Emphasis added.) But as I had said, there was no such assertion in D64 that the accused had an identical twin sibling and as such, the matter on the findings on the various match-ups of the DNA profiles of the accused and the deceased by SP8 therefore, in all fairness, ought to end there and be viewed as conclusive on the matter. Neither was it suggested to SP8 during his cross-examination by learned counsel that Roslan’s DNA profile was present on any of the incriminating exhibits via the analysis by SP8 of them especially on P10B (the electric iron) and the bloodied raffia string. If it is to be recalled, the SP8 had said that DNA profiling done by him on specimens retrieved from these two exhibits had yielded mixed DNA profiles contributed specifically by the accused and the deceased only, which to my mind, effectively means that there was definitely no other person was concerned with them. [46] In the case of Munusamy v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [SC] learned Justice Mohd Azmi SCJ had said that unless the evidence of the chemist was inherently incredible or the defence called evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion, the court was entitled to accept the opinion of the expert on its face value. I had found that there was nothing inherently incredible about the evidence of SP8 on his findings on the DNA profiling on the specimens analysed by him. And I noted too that there was no serious challenge mounted by the defence on the methodology as employed by SP8 in the course of his DNA analysis and definitely there was no introduction by the defence of rebuttal evidence of another expert to contradict SP8’s opinion. In the absence of any credible challenge or rebuttal evidence to counter the credible scientific observations and findings given by SP8 forthcoming from the accused, the former’s (SP8’s) evidence had not been dislodged, let alone effectively rebutted and therefore, must be accepted as such by this court. [47] It is to be recalled that the pathologist (SP5) had also been of the considered view that the death could also had been caused by the breaking of the ‘hyoid’ bone in the neck as a result of the deceased having been choked or strangled. The analysis of the chemist (SP8) on the exhibits sent to him did not yield any discovery of any other male person’s DNA profile on them apart from that which had originated from the accused. As such, the allegation contained in D64 that Roslan was present during the incident and the irresistible suggestion, though not in so many words in D64, that Roslan could be involved in the fatal attack on the deceased, was entirely baseless and could not be supported by the evidence as borne out by the DNA profiling as developed