rayuan jenayah no:q-05-49-04 between empati anak mat

2 MLJ 232). After having considered all the evidence relating
to his alibi, the learned trial judge found that the accused has
failed to establish that on the night of 13.8.1998, he was at his
padi field but at Semujok. He rejected the accused`s defence of
alibi.
On the submission by Mr. Bian that the trial Judge had
erred in not accepting the evidence of the defence’s witnesses
i.e DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW5 on the balance of probability as
credible to prove, support, corroborating or establishing the
defence of alibi, I feel they are devoid of merit. The learned trial
Judge in assessing the accused’s credit at the end of the case
for the defence, including what the accused had said in his re-
examination, had found that the accused had not been able to
explain the material contradictions between what was stated in
his cautioned statement (P19) and his evidence in court and
that his credits stands impeached. There was no conclusive
evidence that what he said about him being at the padi hut on
the material night. I am in agreement with the trial Judge when
he found that what was said by DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW5
whether individually or together as a whole, did not have the
effect of proving, supporting, corroborating or establishing in
any way the alibi of the accused. With regard to the crucial date
of the 13.8.1998 the evidence of none of the witnesses was
able to establish that the accused was at his padi field on that
date. In this case his defence of alibi failed to cast any doubt
20