PP V.

HANIF BASREE BIN ABDUL

RAHMAN

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the two guards did actually see

the accused together with the deceased
and two Malay couples in a Kancil a few
hours before her death ?

SP10 EVIDENCE

Suzaki bin Supok (SP10) was the guard who on duty at the
condominium when the incident happen.
SP10 did not tell the police that he saw the accused and the
deceased that night or at any time until 18.12.2003.
He only disclosed these facts after he was arrested and
remanded as a suspect.

SP10 EVIDENCE

In his examination in chief, SP10 testified as follows ;

He saw the deceased and accused going out in front of the
guardhouse located next to the road at about 1am and chatting
with two other men and two women.
These two couples had come by a white coloured Kancil car.
He saw the registration number of the Kancil but not
remember it.
He saw the accused before 1am (few hours before the
commission of the alleged offence)
He said that the accused was wearing jeans with long sleeved
white T-shirt with grip cuffs and the deceased was wearing
short pants up to her knees with a long T-shirt.

SP11 EVIDENCE

Thanabalan a/l Kobal (SP11) was the security officer at the

condominium and he is the officer in charge for the night shift
from 7pm until 7am.
He is the one who saw the deceaseds body that night when
Kenneth asked him to follow him to his house.
SP11 gave a testimony as follows ;
He states that the accused was wearing blue jeans with light
grey coloured T-shirt and the deceased was wearing black
shorts and singlet.
In the deceaseds room, he said that Kenneth called the police
and asked for an ambulance to be sent. This part is clearly an
exaggeration since Kenneth said that he did not know who
called for the ambulance.

SP11 EVIDENCE

When the police interviewed him for the first time, he did not
tell the Ins. Mohan that he had seen the accused and deceased
talking the four person in the Kancil.
Later, for the second time he did not make any reference to the
accused.Only when he under remand, he made a reference to
the accused.
Later on he said that he saw the Kancil across the road and the
two men and women were chatting with the accused and
deceased for about 10 minutes.

SP11 EVIDENCE

On the night of 17 Decemver 2003, the police show a

photograph of the accused to SP11 and asked him whether he
could recognize the accused but SP11 answered that he could
not.
He later on admit that he knew the accused.
He also admitted in court that he was lying to the police on the
first 4 or 5 occasions when he was shown the photograph of
the accused, that he did not know the accused.
He admitted that his first and second statement was not true
and only the third statement was true.

CONTRADICTIONS IN BOTH SP10

AND SP11 TESTIMONY
SP10

SP11

Loose long T-shirt

Sleeveless T-shirt

Colour of The
Accuseds T-shirt

White T-shirt with grip

cuffs

Grey coloured T-shirt

The way accused and

the deceased walked

They walked one behind

another

Walking in holding hands

Different Top Worn by

the Deceased

JUDGMENT

In this case both SP10 and SP11 had incredibly changed their
earlier statements to the police on the most crucial aspect of
this case, for reasons which are neither believable nor
acceptable to this court; not counting their legal duty to state
the truth to the police under s. 112 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Therefore, the judge rejected the evidence of these two SP10
and SP11 witnesses as being unreliable.