KOTA KINABALU: A senior police officer told the High Court here that he had lodged a police report regarding their Cut-off Operation at Kampung Tanjung Batu three weeks after the incident but his recollection was far better now compared to more than a year before.
Assistant Superintendent Mursalim Mohd Salleh, 44, told Justice Stephen Chung that his police report was lodged three weeks after March 6, 2013 but his recollection in court about the incident was far better than during the incident in Lahad Datu.
Under re-cross examination by deputy public prosecutor Datuk Abdul Wahab Mohamed, Mursalim said the situation more than a year before and the situation now was different as he felt more calm now.
“The situation at Felda Sahabat 16 more than a year before was very uncertain, we did not eat for many days, I needed to take care of my men, I had to manage my men who were sick and I had to do some administration works….I was too busy at that time”, he testified in response to a question by Abdul Wahab yesterday.
Mursalim, who was then a police inspector for the General Operation Force (GOF) leading a team involved in a skirmish at the place, said that in court his recollection was better because in court the situation was more calm.
To another question by Abdul Wahab, he said he did record a compel statement under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The 27th witness was testifying against the 29 accused persons including the nephew of the late self-styled Sulu sultan III, Datu Jamalul Kiram, believed to be the man behind the intrusion in Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed terrorism activities at several places in Lahad Datu, Semporna and Sandakan areas between February 12 and April 10, 2013.
They face the mandatory death sentence while the rest provide for life imprisonment and a fine, upon conviction.
At this stage, Abdul Wahab had applied for a police report lodged by Mursalim including its contents to be tendered as an exhibit.
All counsels involved raised no objection to the application.
To another question by Abdul Wahab, Mursalim said that he lodged the report three weeks after the incident because he had some other assignments and he did not receive any instruction from his boss.
When cross-examined by counsel Datuk N. Sivananthan with regard to his police report, he disagreed to a suggestion that he did not mention any items seized because he never seized those items.
Sivananthan: “When your boss asked you to lodge a police report as an inspector should you not be aware that your police report eventhough brief must state that items were seized?”
Mursalim: “I disagree, my boss instructed me to do a brief police report regarding the incident.”
The witness further disagreed with Sivananthan that his evidence about those items seized more than a year before were merely his creation as he had referred to his notes which he had made on the two pieces of papers.
He also said that he was a bit confused because in his report he only included about the skirmish and items seized on another piece of paper.
The trial continues on June 2.