No dna profiles of four accused found on exhibits, says chemistry expert
Posted on February 2, 2012, Thursday
SHAH ALAM: A chemistry expert told the High Court here yesterday that there were no DNA profiles of four accused in the murder trial of cosmetics millionaire Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others on the exhibits seized during the investigation of the case.
Chemistry Department’s forensic division director, Lim Kong Boon, said he did not find DNA profiles belonging to N.Pathmanabhan, T.Thilaiyalagan, R.Matan and R.Khatavarayan on the cricket bat, zinc sheets and shovel.
The 86th prosecution witness also said that no DNA profile of the four accused were found on the rusty knife.
Cross-examined by counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon, representing Pathmanabhan, Lim said the DNA profiles of the four accused were not found on the 152 exhibits received from the investigation officer, ASP Mohd Ishak Yaacob for analysis except from their own blood samples.
“There was also no DNA profile found on the plastic sack, underwear, a pair of long pants and a sock which I analysed,” he said.
Lim was continuing his testimony in the 63rd day of the trial of former lawyer Pathmanabhan and three farm workers Thilaiyalagan, Matan and Khatavarayan who are charged with the murders of Sosilawati, 47, bank officer Noorhisham Mohamad, 38, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32 and Sosilawati’s driver Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 44.
Pathmanabhan, 42; Thilaiyalagan, 20; Matan, 21; and Kathavarayan, 31, who allegedly committed the offences at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjong Layang, Tanjung Sepat in Banting between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30, 2010, face the mandatory death sentence upon conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
Asked whether he was representing the police while giving testimony in court, Lim said he was giving evidence based on his chemist report.
“Are you biased? partisan?” asked Manjeet to which the witness disagreed.
“You had used the word ‘victims’ and ‘suspects’ twice during your testimony. Do you agree with me that in your job, it does not matter who are the victims and suspects. Your job is only to match the samples given to you,” said Manjeet and the witness answered “yes”.
Asked by Manjeet who wrote the name ‘1/Hisham’ on the blood specimen, Lim answered it was him who wrote the name based on the information given by the investigating officer.
“Why do you need to label ‘1/Hisham’ and not ‘sample 1’. Why you did not tell ASP Ishak to shut up and tell him that you are an independent analyst,” said Manjeet.
“Even with this information, my analysis is still independent. It was only for easier identification,” said Lim.
“Do you know who Hisham is,” asked Manjeet and the witness answered “no”.
“He is a missing person,” said Manjeet and Lim answered “yes”.
“How did you know he was missing,” asked Manjeet.
“Because you just told me so”, Lim answered, to which the court burst into laughter.
Manjeet also complained to Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir why Lim was sitting with the prosecution team during lunch.
The witness admitted that he had lunch with the DPPs and shared a plate of fruit with them.
Judge Akhtar then reprimanded the prosecution and the witness for being unethical.
“How can you be sitting with witness in the presence of the defence team,” said Akhtar.
DPP Ishak Mohd Yusoff replied that it was because they were in the same canteen.
“It is unethical for you to do that. Next time if you do it again I will take action against you and you, Lim should know better since you have been in the business for 33 years. We are not here to make friends,” said Akhtar.
Lim then admitted his mistake and apologised to Akhtar.
The hearing continues today. — Bernama
