Table of Content
1. court's final decision to acquit defendants. (Para 132)

"The discovery of the use of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) has really revolutionized criminal investigations. Its use has assisted in getting convictions of the guilty and release of the innocent. The prosecution's case is based on the discovery of DNA of the deceased, accused, and the "Unknown Male 1". Simply put, in practice, the DNA profile of a person can only belong to that person and that person only. The likelihood of another person having an identical DNA to him, according to SP14, is in the proportion of, something like, between 1 in 41 million, to 330 x 1018, in 6.2 quintillion (6.2 x 1018) calculated based on Malaysian Malay database depending on the type of specimen. In other words such proof is practically conclusive. But in order to be able to utilize DNA for identification of a person, the person who has that DNA profile must be identified and related to a sample of his body fluid or any other part of his body. An expert in DNA can only say whether the DNA belongs or does not belong to an identified person. DNA found without a suspect is of no use. Therefore it is only when a person is identified and the DNA matches that of the identified person can it be of any use towards solving a crime investigation. But even then the prosecution needs to go one step further to show that the DNA of the suspect (together with any other evidence) is such that it points to one conclusion only, ie that the offence was committed by the suspect. In this case the DNA of the "Unknown Male 1" becomes useful only to determine that the DNA belongs to that man. Unfortunately the identity and therefore DNA of that person was unknown. Perhaps sometime in the future there will be a register of DNA profiles like what we now have of thumbprints which will assist the police to trace the owner. The accused's DNA found in circumstances that may have created suspicion of his guilt is not enough to prove his guilt. If there are reasonable explanations as to why his DNA was found in those circumstances, the benefit must be given to him and he must be acquitted and discharged."

[127] Dalam hal ini, tidak ada DNA OKT-OKT dijumpai pada barang kes. Walaupun Mahkamah bersetuju dengan prinsip asas bahawa ketiadaan DNA tertuduh pada barang kes tidak menjejaskan kes pendakwaan kecuali sekiranya saksi mata dapat mengenali dan mengecam tertuduh ketika menyaksikan kejadian sepertimana diputuskan di dalam kes Saimon Anthony lwn. Pendakwa Raya & Rayuan Yang Lain [2023] MLRAU 54; [2023] 5 MLJ 222. Akan tetapi, berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang melimpah ruah, adalah jelas bahawa SP6 tidak dapat mengecam OKT-OKT sepertimana laporan-laporan polis yang dibuat oleh SP6 selepas tarikh kejadian (16 Mac 2020).

[128] Manakala mengenai rotan (eksibit P47), menurut SP18, rotan tersebut telah ditunjukkan oleh OKT1 dan OKT2 dan laporan polis ID65 telah dibuat oleh SP18. Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa ID65 tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah memandangkan ia boleh dikatakan sebagai suatu pengakuan oleh OKT1 dan OKT2 mengenai senjata rotan yang digunakan dalam kes ini. Tidak ada keterangan kukuh yang mengaitkan OKT1 dan OKT2 kerana bukan sahaja DNA OKT-OKT tersebut tidak ada pada rotan. Malahan DNA simati juga tidak ada pada rotan berkenaan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini tidak menerima ID65 sebagai bukti bagi pihak pendakwaan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keputusan Privy Council di dalam Noor Mohamed v. R [1949] AC 182 yang telah dirujuk oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Amathevelli P Ramasamy v. PP [2009] 1 MLRA 153; [2009] 2 MLJ 367; [2009] 3 CLJ 109.

[129] Dengan demikian, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa terdapat keraguan bahawa kelima-lima OKT yang dihadapkan di Mahkamah merupakan OKT-OKT yang telah menyebabkan kecederaan sehingga menyebabkan kematian kepada simati.

[130] Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah turut bersetuju kesan percanggahan keterangan SP6, pihak pembelaan berhujah bahawa pihak pend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document