848 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ floor of the block where the deceased was staying with friends, and the evidence of the arresting officer as to the conduct of the accused at the time of the arrest, established the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime and his identity had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, the set of keys that were seized from the accused when he was arrested, which were subsequently identified by the deceased’s friend as the same set of keys which she had given to the deceased on the morning of 9 March 2006, led the court to infer that the accused must have taken possession of the said keys from the possession of the deceased and that he would have been the person who had locked up the doors of the apartment before the deceased’s friend had returned home that night (see paras 17 & 48). (3) In the present case the intention to kill could be inferred from the physical evidence in the form of the bloodied electric iron, the bloodied raffia string and the bloodied knife sheath, which were recovered from the scene of the crime. All these bloodied items were indicative of violence having taken place at the scene of the crime. Further, the pathologist had testified that either or both the blow to the forehead inflicted by the electric iron, which would in the ordinary course have resulted in the deceased’s death, or the strangulation, which had caused the hyoid bone to break, may have resulted in the death of the deceased. As such, it was found that the accused had intentionally and unlawfully caused the death of the deceased 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, and that this had amounted to murder under s 300 of the Penal Code (see paras 32 & 49). (4) As regards to the offence of rape, it was found that there was sufficient evidence tendered to prove that charge as well. From the evidence of the pathologist it could be reasonably concluded that there was sexual intercourse, since there was present in the private part of the deceased the sperm which the chemist had analysed and confirmed belonged to the accused. Although there were no injuries discerned by the pathologist at the private parts of the deceased, nevertheless from the presence of and the state of the items recovered from the scene of the crime, the only reasonable inference to be derived therefrom was that there had been forced entry into the deceased’s private parts by the accused’s penis. The chemist also opined that no other male DNA profile was profiled from the DNA specimens collected by the pathologist from the deceased’s private parts, except that belonging to the accused. Based on the available evidence it was also found that the circumstances of the case had completely negated any semblance of consensual sexual intercourse having taken place between the accused and the deceased. The messy aftermath in the room was clearly indicative of a struggle having taken place and established that the sexual intercourse was without the free A B C D E F G H I