[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 879 chemist), SP4 (Zalina Aziz) and SP6 (the arresting officer), the factum of the presence of the accused at the scene of crime and his identity had been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. [49] In the case of Nga Khan AIR 1921 LB 4, the accused person killed a person by striking him with one blow to his head with a long and heavy bamboo. The nature of the injury indicated that great force was used. It was held that although the weapon used was not one that would of necessity cause fatal injury, the force used was so great as to show that the accused intended to cause injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that he was guilty of murder. Similarly, inflicting very serious injuries on highly vulnerable parts of the body of the deceased including the skull and where such injuries could not be said to be accidental or unintentional, was ruled to have amounted to murder, as the appellants in the case of Mahadeo Ganpad Badawans AIR 1977 SC 1998, had found out to their peril when their appeal against a conviction for murder, before the Indian Supreme Court was rejected. In this case before me, the blow to the forehead (a part of the skull) of the deceased by the accused was so hard that the handle to the electric iron had broken as a result thereof and the nature of the injury was such that it had caused injury and bleeding to the deceased’s brain that according to SP5 would in the ordinary course would cause death. Similarly, the strangulation of the deceased by the accused had caused the hyoid bone to break also causing death in the ordinary cause of death. According to SP5, the pathologist, both these kinds of injuries ‘dalam pengalaman saya lazimnya, menyebabkan kematian’. As such, it is my finding that the accused person had intentionally and unlawfully caused the death of Siti Zawiah bte Sudin by inflicting on her injuries on critical parts of her person that he knew ordinarily in the course of nature would likely cause her death. SP5’s evidence is conclusive on that score. And that had amounted to murder under s 300 of the Penal Code. [50] As regards, the offence of rape, I am satisfied that there was penetration by the accused person of his penis into the private part of the deceased. Before I proceed with my reason for saying so, it would be quite appropriate for me to reproduce verbatim, the relevant portion, in the notes of proceedings that had related to the examination of the pathologist, SP5 by the learned DPP regarding the issue: TPR: Melihat kepada gambar P6(I) dan P6(J) tadi, bolehkah kamu beritahu mahkamah apakah cecair putih tersebut? I SP5: Ada dua kemungkinan. Pertama, ia mungkin cecair semulajadi kelamin si mati. Ataupun kedua, ia mungkin cecair itu adalah air mani lelaki. Ini hanya boleh dipastikan dengan ujian DNA. TPR: Jika cecair putih itu sememangnya air mani lelaki, bagaimanakah ianya boleh berada di kelamin si mati?