862 Malayan Law Journal [2011] 7 MLJ the neck. The photographs marked as P6(AI) and P6(AJ) would show the said hyoid bone that had broken at the place which appeared to look darker. SP5 also said that he had taken swabs from various parts of the body of the deceased for DNA analysis by the government chemist and among others, he had taken swabs from the chest and the neck region of the deceased’s body. Altogether, SP5 had taken nine swabs from various places of the deceased’s body and they were later on individually put into test tubes and marked for identification. The test tubes were later placed into an envelope provided by SP5 and sealed with Hospital Selayang official seal. The sealed envelope was handed to the police and it was then marked as ‘E15’ before it was sent to the chemistry department. SP8 the chemist, as it had appeared from his evidence, had proceeded to mark each of the swabs in each test tubes therein contained in the envelope marked ‘E15’, as ‘E15(a)’–‘E15(i)’ respectively. From the results of his DNA profiling analysis on all the said specimens, SP8 had found that specimen marked ‘E15(c), namely swab taken from the chest of the deceased had been a mixed DNA profile contributed by both the accused and the deceased. The SP5 had described most of the wounds sustained by the deceased as defensive wounds and there was no suggestion emanating from the defence that the deceased had strangled herself and broke her hyoid bone in the process. Based on the circumstances surrounding this incident, the only reasonable inference that could be arrive at with regard to the breaking of the hyoid bone of the deceased must necessarily be that it was caused by the accused in the struggle between him and the deceased and in his quest to force her into submission he must have strangled her. It is my finding that the said struggle, in all probability, had resulted in his sweat falling on the chest of the deceased causing it to mix with the deceased sweat, thus accounting for the mixed profile developed as per the analysis of E15(c) by SP8. No other male DNA profile was profiled from the specimens marked E15(c) except that belonging to the accused. In the context of the aftermath as could be seen from the photographs and the evidence of the lead CSI team (‘SP7’), no other reasonable inference could, in all fairness, be arrived at. As such, it is my finding that both the fatal head injury and the fatal break of the hyoid bone were caused intentionally to cause the death of the deceased, by the accused. [25] When examined by the learned and deputy on the cause of death of the deceased, SP5 in his own clear words had said: ‘Sebab kematian adalah kecederaan di bahagian kepala dan cekikan dengan tangan di leher. Kecederaan di bahagian kepala telah menyebabkan pendarahan di bawah selaput otak dan juga pendarahan dalam tisu otak si mati. Kesan cekikan berdasarkan kepada tulang ‘hyoid’ leher si mati yang telah patah. Pada pendapat saya, kecederaan seperti yang saya katakan pada kepala dan patah tulang ‘hyoid’ itu pada lazimnya boleh menyebabkan kematian dan dalam kes ini kematian si mati.’ He further explained as follows: ‘Maksud saya sama ada kedua-duanya atau salah satu daripadanya, boleh menyebabkan kematian si mati dan saya tidak dapat menentukan dengan tepat yang mana satu telah terlebih dahulu A B C D E F G H I