[2010] 4 MLJ Low Kian Boon & Anor v Public Prosecutor (Heliliah FCJ) 447 A elaborate further on the complaints raised by learned counsel for the two appellants. Owing to the similarities in the defence raised by both appellants it is found appropriate to summarise the issues raised by both learned counsel for the appellants as follows: B (a) credibility of witnesses as there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution. (b) material flaws: C (i) exh 30, the T-shirt and exh 51 for the identification of the parang; (ii) alleged infirmities such as the conduct of the identification parade and the failure to call several other witnesses; (iii) alleged presence of an unidentified third individual (Ivan). D E F G H I [24] Bearing in mind the above principles, it is then necessary to consider the alleged infirmities in the case for the prosecution. Both learned counsel for the appellants have placed emphasis on the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. The presence of ‘Ivan’ the third figure is also apparently crucial in the context of the explanation furnished by the appellants. In the case of the first appellant Ivan was the explanation to account for his presence in the vicinity of the house of the deceased and in the case of the second appellant the explanation for his presence in waiting at the petrol station. The averments of both counsel lead to the following conclusion, that is, that the evidence of the witnesses are so riddled with inconsistencies that this points to the denudation of the case for the prosecution. It is not for this court to construct or reappreciate assiduously the facts of the case for it is noted that the HC judge has undertaken that task. The question is whether the HC judge has erred in his evaluation of the circumstantial evidence as opposed to the defence raised by the appellants. [25] It is contended that SP5’s and SP8’s evidence are unreliable while the evidence of SP17, 18 and 19 are described as ‘inherently contradictory’. It is notable that the grounds of judgment of the HC judge are punctuated with his findings on the evidence of the witnesses as well as his remarks on his acceptance or otherwise of the evidence of witnesses as well as that of the defence. His evaluation of the evidence of witnesses that provided the link of the appellants to the events that transpired in the house of the accused could be traced from p 2721 (RR Vol 2(7)) until p 2744 (RR Vol 2(8)). The HC judge had stated categorically, as already quoted above, that the appellants were called upon to enter their defence on account of the blood stains seen on their shirts after the crime was committed. The HC judge also stated affirmatively that this ‘must irresistibly lead to an inference that they were in the house of the deceased at the time the deceased was attacked and, therefore, the