KOTA KINABALU: A senior police officer, who was freed by the High Court here yesterday from a charge of killing a single mother in Keningau two years ago, will be celebrating Hari Raya with his family members in Perak this year.
Inspector Ahmad Rizal Umar, 33, who described this as his Ramadan gift, burst into tears soon after he went down from the accused dock as Justice Chew Soo Ho ruled that he was acquitted and discharged from the murder charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code which carries the mandatory death sentence, upon conviction.
As he was still inside the courtroom, he hugged his counsel Ram Singh followed by close friends and family members, who were present there yesterday.
Ahmad Rizal, who had been in custody for two years and two months said that his spirit to return to work as a policeman had never faded.
The inspector, who was previously attached with the Keningau police station, expressed his gratitude and happiness with the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the family members of the deceased at the public gallery were seen looking calmly at Ahmad Rizal.
The deceased’s family members including the parents, sisters, brothers and friend, had left the court earlier while Ahmad Rizal was still inside with his counsels and friends.
“We accept the decision of the court with open heart because the court had ruled according to evidence adduced in court, even though most of the evidence in this case had been destroyed in the fire, I was also informed by the prosecution that this case will be automatically appealed to the higher court,” said the deceased’s father when approached by reporters outside the court.
He further claimed that maybe there were many things hidden in this case as Ahmad Rizal is a police officer, but he put his trust in God that this is the decision.
Ahmad Rizal was freed without his defence being called on the charge of killing the 27-year-old deceased in her rented house at Taman Adika in Keningau between 4 – 5am on Sept 29, 2011.
In ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Ahmad Rizal, the judge held that the prosecution’s evidence on the inconsistency of what the accused had stated in his police report was not true and that it was fabricated did not suffice to infer the act of killing.
He ruled that Ahmad Rizal’s report had most probably inferred to uncertain facts and a cover up of his action but not affirmative to construe an act of murder.
Chew also ruled that on the issue of motive, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the deceased’s sister, female friend and boyfriend named ‘Ah Heng’ on the affair between Ahmad Rizal and the deceased.
He said, nevertheless, no evidence arose from the triangular affair between the three of them to suggest that Ahmad Rizal and the deceased quarreled or fought and in animosity to entitle the court to infer such animosity to the act of murder.
The court also held that there was no evidence to be drawn on the triangular affair that was ongoing until the alleged act of murder.
For that, the court was unable to draw an inference against Ahmad Rizal to the act of murder.
The judge explained that as canvassed by the defence, it was a fact that no proper exhibits were tendered as the principal exhibits were destroyed in a fire and the only available evidence were the photos taken by the chemist and the DNA expert.
The court ruled that the prosecution needed to show each photos taken by the chemist and DNA expert to the relevant officers who have taken samples of exhibits and to also mark them as evidence.
Chew also said that on the issue of the blood sample, there was no evidence on who went and how the blood sample of Ahmad Rizal had been taken and who had labeled that exhibit.
The court said that was silence in the evidence of the prosecution, therefore the court was left in doubt on the exhibit and blood sample taken from Ahmad Rizal.
He said in order to elevate the case, at the least, the personnel from the hospital or the person who took the sample from Ahmad Rizal and did the labeling must be called.
Chew also ruled on the strands of hair from the right hand of the deceased that emphasis must be made as to the two strands of hair on the victim’s hand to suggest it was Ahmad Rizal’s hair is not true and it has to be analyzed by the expert evidence in that sense.
The court also touched on the issue of footprints where the prosecution expert witness informed that there were many footprints at the scene, the witness as an expert ought to be called to visit scene and take the footprints.
He said that the expert took two footprints of Ahmad Rizal and analyzed those footprints on the scene of crime. What happened to the rest of the footprints that had been analyzed by the witness?
Chew ruled that the footprints had to be analyzed whether it was ‘Ah Heng’ or Ahmad Rizal’s footprints as DNA analyzed on the deceased showed that there were four unknown male persons.
He said no evidence was disclosed to rule out the person who was present at the alleged scene at the material time.
The court was left with doubt to say that the only person with the deceased was Ahmad Rizal or there were also others.
Chew explained that there were infirmities in the prosecution’s case and the court was not satisfied on the circumstantial point which was irresistible to the conclusion on the guilt of Ahmad Rizal.
Deputy public prosecutors Syaripuddin Abdul Rasa and Ahmad Nazneen Zulkifli had conducted the trial, calling 25 witnesses to testify against Ahmad Rizal.
The trial, which had drawn public attention, had commenced since April 22, 2013 and at that time Ahmad Rizal was held in custody as the alleged offence was non-bailable.
Ram, who led the defence team, was assisted by counsels Rizwandean Bukhari M. Borhan, YS Lo and Timothy Daut.