[2007] 1 MLRA Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal 707 place some distance away. Fourth, the fact that the first accused knew that Balakrishnan's dead body was at the aforesaid place. Fifth, the first accused's act of throwing Balakrishnan's body at the place where it was found. Sixth, the fact that the second and third accused were involved in the hiring of motor car PCV 7749. Seventh, this car was outside the shop at about 1am on 13 March 1998. Eighth, there were no signs of forced entry into the shop. The grilled door was closed but not locked. Three padlocks were found in the shop with the keys in them. Virama had taken the keys away with her and these were never found at her home. It follows, as a matter of deductive reasoning that the person or persons who entered the shop and removed the jewellery was also at the scene of the murders of Virama, Sathian and Juriah. Ninth, the second accused led PW14 and other police personnel to a place with which he was probably familiar as a former member of the Field Force and at which place he had hidden the jewellery stolen from the shop. Tenth, the first accused was found in a room rented by the second accused. This fact fairly supports and inference of complicity between the first and second accused. [40] Learned counsel for both accused argued that each of the items of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case did not establish a case against their clients. That may well be true; although we think that the finding of the keys in the shop and the evidence let in under s. 27 taken together present quite a formidable case against the accused. A similar submission as that now made to us was urged upon the Court of Appeal of Malaya in Chan Chwee Kong v. Public Prosecutor [1962] 1 MLRA 32 ; [1962] MLJ 307 and rejected. Thomson CJ said: In the first place we have listened to a careful, accurate and detailed analysis of the evidence against the appellant. That evidence was entirely circumstantial and what the criticism of it amounts to is this, that no single piece of that evidence is strong enough to sustain the convictions. That is very true. It must, however, be borne in mind that in cases like this where the evidence is wholly circumstantial what has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of evidence but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together to make a rope. The real question is: is that rope strong enough to hang the prisoner? This passage is, in our judgment, a complete answer to the complaint made by the accused in this case. [41] We have read the record with care. We have carefully scrutinised the evidence. We have read and re-read the judgment under appeal. Yet we are unable to detect any points in favour of the accused that went unconsidered by the judge. Indeed, we are satisfied that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that their convictions are safe. [42] In conclusion we would commend the police personnel involved in the