[2011] 7 MLJ A B C D E F G H I Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rasid bin Hashim (Abang Iskandar J) 863 menyebabkan kematian si mati.’ (Emphasis added.) So, it is clear that both or either of the two injuries could have caused the death of the deceased and the only thing which the SP5 could not say with certainty has been which of these two injuries had caused her death earlier in point of time. To my mind, the relative time as to which of the two fatal injuries had earlier between them caused the death of the deceased was not relevant, but what was relevant has been that it had been established ‘which had not been challenged by the defence both or either of the head injury or strangulation (causing the hyoid bone to break) had caused the death of the deceased in this case. From the manner in which the deceased was found inside the locked room, with all the injuries sustained by her at the crucial part of her anatomy, the intent was that she was left for dead by her assailant, namely the accused. [26] SP5 had also noted that from the pattern which he had observed of the injuries (there were 18 external injuries and four internal injuries in total), none of them had been self-inflicted and that he had also noted that the injuries sustained by the deceased had been so suffered, as if she was acting in self defence and while thwarting frontal assaults on her. These wounds are otherwise commonly referred to as defensive wounds. Photograph marked as P6(Y) would show the defensive wounds. Though no knife was recovered from the scene of the crime by the police CSI team, nevertheless a bloodied knife sheath (‘P32A’) was indeed recovered therefrom by SP7 and the chemist’s analysis on the swab taken from the said sheath, had yielded a finding confirming that it was a mixed DNA profile contributed only by both the accused and the deceased. When SP5 was asked by the learned deputy on the injuries appearing in photograph P6(Y), this is what SP5 had said: ‘Saya berpendapat ianya selaras dengan kecederaan tangkisan, bermaksud si mati sedar ia diserang dan cuba mempertahankan diri semasa diserang.’ Looking at the injuries at the arm of the deceased in P6(Y), one does not need to be enlightened by an expert as to how they had been caused. Those injuries could speak, and indeed, had spoken for themselves. [27] Apart from these injuries on the deceased, SP5 also noted the presence of white coloured liquid in the private part of the deceased which he had testified to be either the deceased’s own seminal fluid (‘cecair kelamin semulajadi si mati’) or a male’s sperm. According to him, its identity could only be determined by way of DNA profiling. As such, he told this court that he had taken sample specimen of the same, exactly for the purpose so that it could be analysed for certainty by the government chemist. As could be recalled, SP8 had found a partial DNA profile on one of the swabs retrieved from the body of the deceased, marked as ‘E15(e)’ which he had found to be consistent which having come from the same source as blood specimen marked ‘E24’ (Muhamad Rasid’s) namely the accused in this case. A scrutiny on ‘E15(e)’ (P22J) had revealed that the specimen on that swabstick had been obtained by