The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the respondents' involvement in the murder with circumstantial evidence, dismissing the defense of alibi.

Suriyadi Halim Omar FCJ:

[1] The respondents were jointly charged with the murder of a Mongolian woman named Altantuya Shaariibu (the deceased), under s 302 of the Penal Code , read together with s 34 of the same Code. The offence was alleged to have been committed between 10.00pm on 19 October 2006 and 1.00am on 20 October 2006 at a place between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja in the district of Petaling in the State of Selangor Darul Ehsan. One Abdul Razak Baginda (Baginda) was also charged with the respondents for abetment of the murder.

[2] It was not disputed by the appellant that the 1st respondent had sent a notice of alibi (D430) to the appellant pursuant to s 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code (pre-amendment). This piece of evidence was introduced at the prosecution's stage, ie when the investigation officer (PW75) was giving evidence. As requested by the 1st respondent, PW75 also introduced the entry of a station diary as ID (D) 428 (p 3310 Jilid 2 a, e), and after a protracted argument the entry was marked as D428. If proved, D428 would corroborate the plea of alibi of the 1st respondent.

[3] After a maximum evaluation of the appellant's evidence, the trial judge was satisfied that the appellant had established a prima facie case, and accordingly called for the defence of the respondents. On the other hand, Baginda was acquitted and discharged at this stage. No appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against that acquittal.

[4] At the end of the trial, after a maximum evaluation of the evidence, which took into account the defence posed by both the respondents, the trial judge found the defence raised to be equivalent to mere denials. The trial judge found the plea of alibi unproved by the 1st respondent whilst the 2nd respondent's unsworn evidence was found as ineffective. As no reasonable doubt had been created over the prosecution's case they were accordingly convicted for murder.

[5] Being aggrieved the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the convictions of both the respondents and had them acquitted and discharged. The acquittals of both the respondents led to this appeal before us.

Submission Before Us

[6] Evidence was adduced to show that Baginda had a failed affair with the deceased and consequently facing its repercussion. When it ended, the deceased came to Malaysia on 8 October 2006 to demand money from Baginda. She flew down together with her second cousin, one Namiraa Gerelmaa (PW3), and a friend called Urintuya Gal-Ochir (PW4). These two witnesses unfolded the chequered history of Baginda with the deceased, and of her purpose in Malaysia.

[7] Baginda then hired the services of a private investigator (PW1) to keep an eye on the deceased's movement and activities and also to guard his house and family. As Baginda's house was located at Damansara Heights, and falling under the jurisdiction of the Brickfields police jurisdiction, he then sought the assistance of one Deputy Superintendent of Police Musa Safri (DSP Musa), the ADC to the then Deputy Prime Minister, to introduce him to the Officer in Charge of the Police District (OCPD) of Brickfields.

[8] As the 1st respondent was tasked with the duty of patrolling the area where Baginda's house was located, DSP Musa requested the 1st respondent to meet Baginda (p 5626 exh 436). This, the 1st respondent did, and Baginda met him. Baginda informed the 1st respondent that the deceased stayed at Hotel Malaya, Kuala Lumpur and gave him her room number (see P80A). The 1st respondent, having requested the 2nd respondent to assist him, together went to Hotel Malaya on 18 October 2006. They went immediately to the eighth floor where the d