[26] In this respect, from the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court was satisfied that the element of forced labour or services in the form of non-payment of salary was not satisfied by the prosecution for the reason that there was no cogent evidence adduced of the terms of employment, and so too of the amount of salary, even though SP1 had testified that it was RM400 a month, but whose evidence was given little weight, as this Court had found, and agreed with the trial judge, that SP1 was not a credible witness. The issue of SP1's credibility will be discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.

[27] However, under cross-examination, evidence was led and suggested to SP1 who agreed that the jewellery that were bought by the Defendant in the amount of RM3,000.00,was in lieu of her salaries, and the remaining amount of money to be paid was to be determined according to the terms of the agreement agr