The prosecution must provide credible evidence of all elements of an alleged trafficking offence to establish a prima facie case.

[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 agreed earlier by both parties, but which was not made known by the prosecution. As there was a lack of evidence as to the expiry of her employment, and as SP1 had run away before the said expiry, this had created a doubt as to the fact of non-payment of the remaining salary, and therefore the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused.

[28] There was no iota of evidence to show that she was forced to do anything other than the household chores of a domestic maid, such as washing the cars of the accused or those of her family members. Further, she had also admitted that cooking was not part of her job, and there was no evidence to show that she had to work elsewhere, for instance, at the houses of the relatives of the Accused.

[29] This Court had also considered the fact of the alleged confinement of SP1 within the house of the Accused, which based on the evidence of the prosecution itself, showed that she was not at all confined within the house such as to be "under lock and key". In fact, the house keys were given to her as she was also tasked to buy groceries and food at the nearby shops almost every day. Hence, this showed that the prosecution had failed to establish the fact of the alleged confinement imposed by the Accused on SP1.

[30] Further, this Court had considered as to whether there was a proper room allocated specially for her. This Court found, as agreed by SP1, that she was given a room that was fit for sleeping and resting with all the basic amenities supplied like bed, pillows, blanket, fan, dressing table with mirrors etc. as clearly shown in the photographs ie P1 E, D, F. Judging by the photographs of the house of the Accused, marked as P1 A, B, C, this Court had found as a fact that the house of the Accused to be a conducive working place.

[31] SP1 had also alleged that she was physically abused by the accused and her son. She alleged that her body was scarred by the hot iron as a result of the iron being pressed on her body by the Accused's son. However, the examination by the doctor (SP4) showed the mere presence of a soft tissue injury. To the contrary, and in fact, SP4 found SP1 to be well. There were no fractures on any part of her body nor were there any signs of serious injuries. There was also no evidence of scar on her body resulting from hot iron.

[32] From the admission of SP1's, it was proved that she had received proper food, all of which showed that her overall welfare and well-being were taken care of.

[33] In the final analysis, this Court found that there was no evidence of forced labour or services, nor had SP1 suffered any physical injuries through physical abuse, as per the charge. Hence it was not proved that SP1 was a victim of trafficking by the accused for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, the charge cou