CHAPTER 3: OPINION EVIDENCE
✓ General rule: witness may only give evidence of facts, not opinion.
✓ Opinion is the conclusion drawn from the facts & would be the
judge’s duty, thus allowing opinion basically allows usurping court’s
function.
✓ S.60 EA: Oral evidence shall in all cases be direct, relating to what
the witness witnessed, heard or perceived.
✓ S.3 EA: “facts” means and includes— (a) any thing, state of things or
relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses; (b) any
mental condition of which any person is conscious
✓ Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587: only facts perceived are
relevant, not opinion
✓ Dolgobinda Paricha Vs. Nimai Charan Misra & Ors [1959] INSC
52: A belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a
particular question.
Exceptions to General Rule
Expert opinion
✓ S.45 EA: Expert opinion on foreign law, science or art, handwriting
or fingerprint.
✓ Divided into:
▪ Evidence of fact (from observation) – perception
▪ Opinion evidence on conclusions drawn based on observation –
inference
▪ Khoo Hi Chiang v PP [1994] 1 MLJ 265: Chemist identification
of drugs (his conclusion) is based on objective observation of
facts, hence his evidence is evidence of fact.
Types of Expert
▪ PP v Saad bin Mat Takraw [1998] 3 MLJ 784:
a) Gazette experts, such as the gaming experts appointed by gazette
notification under Section 11(6) of the Common Gaming Houses
Act 1953
b) Experts that come within the purview of section 45 to 49 of the
Evidence Act 1950
1. Gazetted expert
▪ PP v Saad bin Mat Takraw [1998] 3 MLJ 784: A gazetted expert
is a creature of statute & does not require proof of qualification.
▪ Sun Ho Sdn. Bhd. v. Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd. & Anor.
[2008] 10 CLJ 593: Plaintiff witness was a gazetted document
examiner
2. Experts under s.45
✓ Either qualification or experience
▪ PP v Muhamed bin Sulaiman [1982] 2 MLJ 320, 322 (FC): while
the expert must be skilled, he need not be so by special study, he
may be so by experience and the fact that he has not acquired his
 knowledge professionally goes merely to weight and not to
admissibility. (per Suffian LP)
▪ Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim & Anor. v. Public Prosecutor [1983] 2
CLJ 10: One can acquire expert knowledge in a particular sphere
through repeated contact with it in the course of one's work,
notwithstanding that the expertise is derived from experience and
not from formal training (per Eusoffee Abdoolcader FJ)
*Note: though lack of experience usually affects weigh, it may
affect admissibility in highly complex and scientific matters.
✓ May be semi-skilled/semi-professionals
▪ Kong Nen Siew v. Lim Siew Hong [1971] 1 LNS 53: It is unwise
to reject semi-skilled or semi-professional opinion. The Court
should adapt itself to the circumstances of the country and take
advantage of such knowledge as may be available. (per Seah J)
✓ Must be actual expert on the subject matter (at the material time)
▪ PP v. Mat Kilau Mohamad [2012] 5 CLJ 147: Although she is a
scientific officer at that time, as DNA profiling requires special
skill, she only obtained degree in DNA profiling five years after
analysis had been carried out on evidence, therefore held she is
not a DNA expert and thus her evidence should be rejected.
Process
Whether the subject matter/nature of evidence requires special skills?
✓ R v Turner: If on the proven facts, a judge can form his own
conclusions without help, the opinion of an expert is unnecessary.
▪ Ong Chan Tow v. R (1963) MLJ 160: Expert opinion of a
psychiatrist to show how an ordinary person not suffering from
mental illness is likely to react to the stresses and strains of life
was inadmissible as it is within the ordinary human experience.
Whether the witness has acquired necessary skills on the matter?
✓ Junaidi bin Abdullah v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 217:
- Supreme Court set two stage test:
(i) does the nature of the evidence require special skill;
(ii) has the witness acquired the necessary skill either by academic
qualification or experience so that he has adequate knowledge to
express an opinion on the matter under enquiry.
- The speciality of the skill required of an expert witness under s.
45 would depend on the scientific nature and complexity of the
evidence sought to be proved.
✓ Wong Chop Saow v. Public Prosecutor [1964] 1 LNS 218: to avoid
confusion the expert witness should give his evidence as follows.
i. He should first state his qualifications as an expert.
ii. He should then state that he has given evidence as an expert
in such cases and that his evidence has been accepted by the
Courts. (this is not a pre-requisite; it adds more weigh but does
not affect the admissibility)
iii. He should then proceed to describe the various documents and
give his reasons why in his opinion they relate to characters
lottery. The trial Magistrate must then come to a finding that
 he either accepts or rejects the evidence of the expert witness
vis-a-vis characters lottery.
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Chong Wei Kian [1990] 2 CLJ 435: The
chemist was not an expert witness since no evidence was tendered
to show his qualification and experience except for the fact that
he had been a chemist for 18 years. The Court held that in
tendering evidence of expert witnesses, the principle enunciated
by Hashim J in Wong Chop Saow v. PP should be followed.
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Lin Lian Chen [1990] 2 CLJ 1020:
Prosecution should first establish the expertise of the witness. The
opinion which he is asked to give must relate to a matter
concerning which his special knowledge will assist the Court. The
expert may not give an opinion on matters outside the field of his
expertise. Despite a graduate of chemistry with 13 years of
experience in chemistry department, no evidence was led to show
witness had necessary expertise in analysis of dangerous drugs.
✓ Phipson on Evidence: The competency of an expert is a preliminary
question for the judge and is one upon which considerable laxity
(leniency; looseness) prevails. Though the expert must be skilled by
special study or experience, the fact that he has not acquired his
knowledge professionally goes merely to the weight and not the
admissibility of the evidence, causing it to have less probative value.
Is s.399 CPC satisfied?
✓ Report of expert can be admitted without calling the expert, unless he
is required to attend as witness or called by accused.
✓ S.399(1) CPC: a report by expert without calling for his attendance
may be admitted in Court and copy of report must be given to the
accused not less than 10 days before commencement of trial.
✓ The expert’s attendance may be required by (a) the Court or (b) the
Accused, subject to a notice given to PP not less than 3 days before
trial.
▪ Shamsul Kamar Karia v. PP [2013] 9 CLJ 387: As an evidentiary
provision and as an important hearsay exception, the stringent
fundamental pre-requisite in s. 399(1) of the CPC, a copy of report
must be served on the appellant not less than ten clear days before the
commencement of the trial, must be strictly complied with before it
could be ruled as admissible and accepted as conclusive evidence for
the prosecution to prove that the drugs exhibits were cannabis within
the meaning of s. 2 of the DDA. S.399 CPC prevails over s.32(1)(i)
& (j) EA.
Foreign law
▪ PP v Forster Frank Edald Heinrich [1988] 2 MLJ 594: The court
allowed the admissibility of evidence by an expert on German law to
be given on the effect of the affidavits.
▪ In the estate of Sim Siew Guan, deceased [1932] MLJ 95: The court
accepted the testimony of the Consul General of China on matters
concerning Chinese matrimonial customary practices in China.
▪ Sivagami Achi v PRM Ramanathan Chettiar [1959] 25 MLJ: also
includes the law alien to that practised in the country, not only limited
to law of that foreign country. Widow’s petition for passing of estate
to her relying on the Mitakshara system of Hindu law. The court ruled
it is difficult to decide without expert on the system testifying.
▪ Mak Sik Kwong v Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ
168: The court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law until it is
directed to do so. Even then it may refuse such direction until and
unless the person who calls upon it to take judicial notice produces
the necessary documents which enables it to do so.
Science/Art
✓ Flexibility as to what constitute ‘science/art’
▪ Chandrasekaran v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 153: Expert opinion in this
case regarding typewriting was accepted comparing its similarity
to matter of science study as much as fingerprint evidence and
handwriting. ‘Science’ or ‘art’ is capable of being given a liberal
interpretation. (per Raja Azlan Shah J)
▪ Leong Wing Kong v PP [1994] 1 SLR(R) 681: The phrase science
or art should include all subjects on which a course of special
study or experience is necessary to the formation of an opinion. It
is nevertheless court’s discretion as to what fall within the scope
of ‘science’ or ‘art’.
✓ Facial mapping
▪ Regina v. Stockwell CA 5 Apr 1993: Expert evidence of facial
comparison was admissible if the information and assessment
are not otherwise available to the jury.
✓ Video Superimposition
▪ R v. Hookway (1999) Crim LR 750
▪ R v. Clarke (1995). Cr. App. R. 425: This technique is a
species of real evidence.
▪ DP Vijendran v. PP [1999] 1 MLJ 385: expert opinion on sex
video is admissible and recognised field by scientific and legal
community.
Handwriting
✓ Court does need aid of expert to rule on handwriting, yet it has
always been accepted that expert evidence on it is not and can
never be conclusive.
✓ S.73(1) EA: enables the Court to compare disputed writings
with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a
writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been
written.
✓ S.73(2) EA: the court may also direct the maker of a
handwriting to write any words/figures for purpose of
comparison with another alleged to have been his as well.
[maker himself]
▪ Requires expert evidence - Syed Abu Bakar Ahmad v Public
Prosecutor [1984] 1 CLJ 80 (FC): It is a settled principle that
while a judge sits alone, it entitles to weigh all the evidence to put
his magnifying glass to determine the probabilities and form his
own opinion or judgment. It would be erroneous for him to form a
conclusion on a matter which could be properly concluded with
the aid of expert evidence.
▪ Expert evidence not mandatory - Letchumanan Chettiar
Alagappan @ L Allagappan & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn
Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418: Federal Court ruled that comparison may
be made by:
(i) a handwriting expert under s. 45 of the Act;
(ii) anyone familiar with the handwriting of the persons
concerned, as provided by s. 47 of the Act; or
(iii) the court itself under s. 73 of the Act.
- If the feature of writing and signature on the documents are so
glaring, the court can form an opinion by itself and further
exercise under s. 45 may virtually become unnecessary or
futile.
- It should be clear enough that a finding of forgery could be
made without the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert, be
it in civil (AGS Harta Sdn Bhd v. Liew Yok Yin) or in criminal
proceedings (Dato' Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v. PP)
✓ Evidential value
▪ Srikant v King Emperor AIR 1963 SC 1728: Despite such
evidence being entitled to proper consideration and
weight, to base a conviction upon the evidence of an
expert in handwriting alone is very unsafe.
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim [1976]
1 LNS 105:
- Evidence of experts can never go beyond an opinion and
can never therefore be of absolute certainty. It has always
been accepted that expert evidence especially of
handwriting can never be conclusive.
- The proper way to assess the evidence in this case would
be to see whether the court could act on such evidence if
there was corroboration either by direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence.
▪ Dalip Kaur Gurbux Singh v. Pegawai Polis Daerah
(OCPD), Bukit Mertajam & Anor. [1992] 1 MLJ 1: The
Supreme Court held it is trite law that evidence by a
handwriting expert should be viewed with caution as it is
only an opinion evidence. But such evidence is entitled to
be given proper consideration and weighed in the context
of the other evidence available to the Court. (per Hashim
Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya)) - referred to Mohamed Kassim
bin Yatim case
▪ United Asian Bank Bhd v. Tai Soon Heng Construction Sdn
Bhd [1993] 1 MLJ 182: Opinion on handwriting must be
supported by reasons; if unsupported by cogent data showing the
process by which he came to his conclusion, it is not worthy of
reliance.
✓ Need/absence of corroboration; circumstances of the case
▪ Dr. Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy [1997] 3 MLJ 61 (FC):
- there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has
crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a
handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially
corroborated.
- In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where
the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable
evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a
handwriting expert may be accepted.
✓ Non-expert’s opinion on handwriting
▪ S.47 EA: A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting
of another person when he has seen that person write, received
documents purported to be written by that person, or when
documents purported to be written by that person have been
habitually submitted to him.
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim [1976]
1 LNS 105: The opinions of chief clerk of department
where accused worked and Assistant Information Officer,
who is the accused’s superior and had been familiar with
his handwriting and signature were relevant.
▪ S.67 EA: If a document has been written or signed by a
person, then an inference can be made that the signature
or writing belongs to that person, rendering it unnecessary
to prove the handwriting.
Fingerprint
✓ If conclusive evidence, may be used to convict if beyond
reasonable doubt guilt is achieved.
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Toh Kee Huat [1964] 1 LNS 149: At any
rate, the weight of evidence of finger-prints can never be
decried. The position and circumstances a finger-print was
found could lead to a reasonable inference for proving guilt.
✓ However, for other offences for instance murder, it only
proves the vicinity of the accused at the crime scene. Same
goes to drug trafficking case, the fingerprint on the packet only
indicates the possession instead of trafficking.
General custom & rights
▪ S.48 EA: Applicable to only general customs and rights, that
is generally accepted by a group of society.
➢ The custom or rights can be proved by two ways:
i. adducing experts
ii. judicial notice.
 ▪ PP v Lee Ee Teong [1953] 1 MLJ 244: Evidence of
detectives and other persons who by reason of their
experience have special knowledge of methods of
gambling. This sort of evidence is not, strictly speaking,
the evidence of experts as that expression is used in the
Evidence Ordinance and it is admissible not under section
45 but under sections 49 and 98 of that Ordinance.
✓ Expert under s.48 EA
▪ Kong Nen Siew v. Lim Siew Hong [1971] 1 LNS 53:
Registrar of Chinese Foochow marriages as a recognised
authority on Foochow custom pertaining to matrimonial
matters in Sarawak, would treat him as an expert within
the meaning of s. 45 of the Evidence Ordinance.
✓ Judicial notice
▪ Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn. Bhd. v. Juruus
Ladang Sdn. Bhd. [1985] 1 LNS 122: Judicial notice,
however, will be given to any custom or usage which has
repeatedly been recognised by the courts and it passes into
the law of the land; in other words, if it has been frequently
or at all events more than once, proved in the superior
court as shown by reported cases. The Court may hold the
custom or usage to be introduced into the law without the
necessity of proof in each individual case.
Usages, tenets, etc. when relevant
▪ S.49 EA: to determine whether a person belong to a particular
group of people by looking at their tenets and usage. (wider
than s.45 to include non-expert; e.g special knowledge exists
through association with particular group)
▪ PP v Lee Ee Teong [1953] 1 MLJ 244:
- There is a difference in the evidence of a person which is
based on his special knowledge and one which is based on
his expertise within the meaning of Sec. 45.
- In this case, the prosecution frequently relied upon
evidence by detectives who through experience have
special knowledge on the methods of gambling. However,
such evidence is not the evidence of experts, rendering it
admissible only under Sec. 49.
▪ R v Lim Chin Shang [1956] 1 NLS 109: Opinion of detective
of the tattoo mark to identify the personas a member of a secret
society was admissible as the detective himself was the head
of this secret society between 1946-1948.
✓ Ways to prove usage or custom
▪ Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn. Bhd. v. Juruus Ladang
Sdn. Bhd. [1985] 1 LNS 122: Usage or custom may be proved
through any one of these four ways:
a) by direct evidence of witnesses which must be positive
and not amount to a mere opinion or
 b) by a series of particular instances in which it has been
acted upon or
c) by proof of similar customs in the same or
d) analogous trades in other localities or when ancient by
e.g., the declaration of deceased persons of competent
knowledge or other forms of reputation.
Non-expert opinion on relationships
A. S.50 EA: illustration (a) – marriage
▪ Ong Cheng Neo v Yeap Cheah Neo & Ors (1872) 1 Ky.
326 (PC): The evidence of reputation of two persons being
husband and wife is evidence of such marriage.
✓ Exception: s.50(2) EA – criminal prosecution
▪ Rex v. Govindasamy [1933] 2 MLJ 97:
- The distinction between the degree of proof of marriage
required in a civil case and that required in a criminal
prosecution is exemplified by section 50 (2) of the
Evidence Ordinance which provides that the opinion
expressed by conduct of any person who has special
means of knowledge as to the existence of any relationship
of one person to another shall not be sufficient to prove a
marriage in prosecutions under section 498 although such
opinion is a relevant fact which might constitute sufficient
evidence in a civil matter.
- On a criminal charge, the actual celebration of a marriage
ceremony must be proved unless the marriage can be
established by a certificate of registration and if the ceremony
is to be proved at least one witness must be recalled who can
describe it so as to enable the court to determine whether it
constituted a legal marriage.
B. S.50 EA: illustration (b) – legitimacy
✓ Consistently treated as a legitimate son by members of
family is relevant.
Function of the court
✓ Ultimately, any form of reliance on expert opinion does not place
the court under the obligation of being bound by the opinion.
✓ Court need not accept the opinion, but must consider them.
▪ S.51 EA: A witness giving opinion must give the grounds for
reaching such opinion.
▪ Sim Ah Song & Anor. v. Rex [1951] 1 MLJ 150: expert opinion
has no evidentiary value without proper explanation that actually
supplements the understanding of the subject matter on the area
which the Court lacks. Bare explanation will not do.
▪ Khoo Hi Chiang v PP [1994] 1 MLJ 265 (SC): In the type of cases
where the opinion of the chemist is confined only to the
elementary nature and identity of substance, the court is entitled to
accept the opinion of the expert on its face value, unless it is
inherently incredible or the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by
 another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible
evidence is given by the chemist to support his opinion, there is no
necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory,
step by step. (per Abdul Hamid Omar LP)
▪ PP v. Chia Leong Foo [2000] 4 CLJ 649:
- Where the report relates to a matter pertaining to expert
evidence, the report must contain the reasons for the
conclusions.
- As the evidence of a chemist on the analysis of drugs by
him is not evidence of opinion but evidence of fact, he
need not give particulars of the tests carried out by him in
his evidence.
▪ Wong Swee Chin v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 212:
1. Except on purely scientific issues, expert evidence is to be
used to assist the court but not to compel the court.
2. Our system of jurisprudence does not remit the determination
of dispute to experts; it is the judge of fact that decides.
▪ Syed Abu Bakar Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [1984] 1 CLJ 80
(FC): In the ultimate analysis it is the tribunal of fact, whether it
be a judge or jury, which is required to weigh all the evidence and
determine the probabilities. It cannot transfer this task to the
expert witness, the Court must come to its own opinion. (per
Abdul Hamid Omar FJ)
▪ Chou Kooi Pang v PP [1998] 3 SLR: Expert opinion is only to
furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be
outside the experience of the court.
▪ Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai [1997]
2 CLJ 153 (FC): The learned Judge is entitled to reject the
evidence but not before considering such evidence. The evidence
of the expert is admissible and relevant to the fact in issue properly
placed before the learned Judge. The learned Judge ought to
consider all such evidence that is before him prior to arriving at a
finding on the issue. Only after such due consideration been given
could he come to a finding.
▪ Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v CGU Insurance Berhad.
[2007] 2 CLJ 1 (FC): Non-consideration of material evidence
constitutes "insufficient judicial appreciation of relevant
evidence". Failure of the Court of Appeal to have regard to the
experts' evidence in arriving at its decision has indeed resulted in
a serious and substantial miscarriage of justice which invites
appellate interference. (per Nik Hashim FCJ)
Conflict of opinions
✓ Judge has the discretion to favour which opinion, but must
provide reasoning for doing so.
▪ Collector of Land Revenue v. Alagappa Chettiar [1968]
1 LNS 31 (PC): Privy Council held that where expert oral
evidence has been called at the trial and discloses a
 conflict of opinion between them, the trial judge's finding
as to which he regarded as most reliable is entitled to
considerable weight. (per Lord Diplock)
▪ Pavone v. Public Prosecutor (No 2) [1985] 1 LNS 99: Court
must determine whether differences of opinion were
explained.
➢ Opinion evidence not seriously challenged will be given
probative value.
➢ Failure to object is not fatal, yet failure to cross-examine
witness is fatal as it will be considered as admitted
evidence.
✓ Production of third witness
▪ Public Prosecutor v. Ang Soon Huat [1990] 1 LNS 103: that
in the face of a dispute between experts, it is incumbent on the
prosecution to produce additional expert evidence. Otherwise,
the court is left in a position, where it can only conclude that
the defence has thrown a reasonable doubt on the validity of
the prosecution evidence on the point.
✓ Factors influencing court’s preference
▪ Lim Teck Kong v. Dr. Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid & Anor
[2006] 3 MLJ 213:
Factors that seemed to influence the court’s preference would
be: qualifications & experience of expert witnesses, expert
reasoning, methodology used and other factors related.
▪ Sakthivel Punithavathi v. Public Prosecutor Sakthivel
Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983:
Supreme Court of Singapore held that
- Where there is conflicting evidence between experts it will
not be the sheer number of experts articulating a particular
opinion or view that matters, but rather the consistency
and logic of the preferred evidence that is paramount.
- The court should also scrutinise the credentials and
relevant experience of the experts in their professed and
acknowledged areas of expertise. (especially in regards to
hands-on work)
▪ Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor and
another appeal [2015] 2 MLJ 293 (FC): Federal Court
dismissed the appeal, ruling:
(a) both defence witnesses had not done any tests on the
samples but merely interpreted and made observations of
the findings of prosecution witnesses. Whereas,
prosecution witnesses themselves had personally carried
out the DNA analysis on the samples; and
▪ (b) as regards his proficiency, DW4 had his last
proficiency test in 2004, seven years prior to the trial. On
the other hand, PW5 and PW6 had undergone proficiency
tests once every six months.
✓ Scientific grounds based
▪ Singapore Finance Ltd. v. Lim Kah Ngam (Singapore)
Pte.Ltd. [1984] 1 LNS 3: The conflicting experts' evidence
requires examining the scientific grounds and bases. Where
the opinion of an expert is based on reports of facts and
empirical observations, court is to satisfy, on a balance of
probabilities, whether those facts did in truth exist and
whether any inference or inferences drawn from those facts,
taken individually and collectively, were sound or not.
▪ Chua Seng Sam Realty Sdn. Bhd. v. Say Chong Sdn. Bhd. &
Ors and Anor Appeal [2012] 7 CLJ 337 [CA]: Court of
Appeal stated that in treating conflicting expert evidence, the
court, besides examining the credibility of the experts, should
also examine the scientific grounds and facts relied by the
experts and whether, when taken in totality, the inferences
drawn from their findings are sound or otherwise.
▪ Nilai-3 Porcelain Inn Sdn Bhd v Berjaya Sompo Insurance
Bhd [2013] 9 MLJ 256: When the court is required to decide
which among conflicting versions the correct approach would
be to test the versions based on oral evidence against the
contemporaneous documents and overall circumstances
material to the issue. The version more consistent with these
ought to be accepted as being more credible and inherently
probable.
DNA Evidence
▪ S.90A EA: Computer generated document for DNA
report.
▪ PP v Loo Seng Yip [2004] 8 CLJ 496: An expert must
give reasons for his conclusions. In the case of DNA
evidence, it is the number of matches and their DNA
characteristics that will explain the relationship between
the samples analysed. The number of matches will also
facilitate a calculation of the random occurrence ratio.
These will constitute the reasons for the conclusion arrived
at by the chemist. (per Augustine Paul J)
▪ Hanafi Mat Hassan v. PP [2006] 3 CLJ 269: In DNA
cases, expert must explain nature of match and frequency
of such match by giving reason.
▪ Ahmad Najib Aris v. PP [2009] 2 CLJ 800: Chemist
report of DNA admissible under s.90A(6) to presume
report produced in course of ordinary use.
✓ Identical twin
▪ Sathish Raj & Sabarish Raj: Justice Zaharah said that
based on the testimonies by the two policemen, there were
doubts and the prosecution had failed to determine which
of the twins was in possession of the drugs. One of the
accused should be called to enter his defence but the
question is which twin, because even the DNA cannot be
used to determine the identity.
✓ Challenge DNA Evidence:
i. Degradation of DNA
ii. Break in chain of custody
iii. Conflicting expert opinion
iv. S.90A not satisfied
v. Expert not qualified
vi. Expert did not give reasoning