Augustine Paul J:

Muhamad Suhaimi bin Abdul Aziz (the "accused") resided at premises No 40, Lorong Setia Puspa I, Medan Damansara, Kuala Lumpur (the "premises") with his wife Faizah binti Arshad ("Faizah") and their three children named Muhamad Fariz, Sarah (PW7) and Muhamad Syafik. Their Thai maid Yawahe Waelateh also stayed with them. On 25 September 1999 Inspector Koh Jok Tian (PW5) received information about a murder at the premises. He rushed to the scene and found the body of a female, later identified to be that of Faizah, in a bathroom in the ground floor of the premises. He noticed a blood stained knife lying near the right leg of Faizah. Dr Ong Beng Beng, a forensic pathologist with the Universiti Hospital of the University of Malaya, was taken to the scene. He said that by then Faizah was already dead. He also noticed blood spots in the bathroom. Later he conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Faizah. He found her to have 26 stab wounds. In concluding that the cause of death was due to stab wounds to the chest he also said in his report (exh. P3):

The examination at the scene suggested that she was killed inside the bathroom. She had numerous defence wounds. This suggested that she put up a struggle before being killed. There were also numerous incised and stab wounds on her body. Ultimately she succumbed to her injuries and collapsed on the floor of the bathroom. The fatal injuries were the stab wounds to the chest which penetrated the lungs and caused massive haemorrhage. The stab wounds on her body were consistent with that caused by the knife shown by the police.

The accused was subsequently charged with the murder of Faizah under s. 302 of the Penal Code. He claimed trial to the charge.

The prosecution called eight witnesses in support of its case. Mariam binti Abdul Latif (PW4) is the mother of Faizah. On 25 September 1999 she was in her house in Kluang. As she said in her evidence:

Pada sebelah petang lebihkurang jam 3.30 petang cucu saya Sarah telefon saya. Katanya: Mama sudah mati. Abah buat. Pada hari itu selepas Sarah bercakap dengan saya saya pun terkejut. Saya rasa macam nak rebah. Saya pun angkat telefon beri kepada suami saya.

PW7, aged eight years old now, was called by the prosecution as its seventh witness. Having conducted an inquiry I was not satisfied that she was in a position to give sworn evidence. Accordingly I ruled that her evidence shall be unsworn. The material parts of her evidence are as follows:

Pada 25.9.99 jam lebihkurang 3.30 petang saya ingat saya ada menelefon kepada nenek saya. Saya ingat apa yang saya cakap kepada nenek saya. Saya cakap pada nenek saya: Mama sudah mati, abah buat. Sebelum saya telefon nenek saya, saya sedang menjaga adik saya yang sedang tidur. Pada masa itu saya nampak bapa saya tendang pintu bilik air. Saya dengar mama saya menjerit. Masa itu mama saya ada di dalam bilik air. Kemudian saya kejut kakak iaitu Kakak Ramlah. Saya nampak abah saya keluar dari bilik air. Masa itu saya lihat baju dan tapak kaki abah berdarah. Selepas itu baru saya telefon nenek saya. Sebelum telefon nenek saya ada cakap dengan jiran. Saya cakap dengan jiran selepas saya telefon nenek saya. Saya ta' ingat warna baju yang dipakai oleh ayah saya.

The prosecution had also obtained a subpoena against Yawahe Waelateh to be called as a witness. However, the subpoena could not be served on her as she had gone back to Thailand. PW5 had also contacted Interpol to trace her. He was informed that the witness could not be traced. PW5 tendered the necessary documents in support of this part of his evidence (exh. P11A, B, C). He then said that he had recorded a statement from Yawahe Waelateh on 4 October 1999. In giving the statement she spoke to him in the Kelantan dialect which he understood. She affixed her signature to the statement that she had given. As I was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to explain the non-availability of Yawahe