Rizal (second left) with his counsel Ram (second right) and Rizwandean (left) after the Appeals Court’s decision. yesterday.
KOTA KINABALU: The Court of Appeal here yesterday upheld the acquittal of a police officer who was charged with killing a single mother four years ago.
Justices Dato’ Setia Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Datuk Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham and Dato’ Zaleha Yusof unanimously affirmed the High Court decision on Inspector Ahmad Rizal Umar, 35, as they held that there were no strong evidential points to link the respondent to the crime.
In dismissing the appeal by the prosecution, the judges ruled that they were not prepared to call the respondent (Ahmad Rizal) to enter his defence.
On July 22, 2014, Ahmad Rizal was freed without his defence being called on a charge of killing the 27-year-old Kartini Borhan in her rented house at Taman Adika in Keningau between 4am and 5am on Sept 29, 2011.
The offence was framed under Section 302 of the Penal Code which carries the mandatory death sentence, upon conviction.
Earlier, the prosecution submitted that the pathologist found two strands of hair in the right hand of the deceased and the pathologist testified that the hair had to be retrieved between the fingers of the deceased.
The prosecution contended that there was a struggle between the respondent and the deceased and if there was no struggle between the two of them, why would be the respondent’s hair in the grip of the deceased?
The prosecution further submitted that according to the investigating officer of the case, who testified that there was no evidence of the rented house being broken into as stated in a police report lodged by the respondent plus all the arrangements in the room were in order.
The prosecution also submitted that the motive of the murder was jealousy according to testimonies by the deceased’s sister and best friend which the trial judge had failed to appreciate.
In urging the court to order for the respondent to enter his defence, the prosecution added that the injuries on the respondent’s body had been examined which showed that it was superficial in nature and not defensive wounds.
In reply, Ram argued that two strands of hair found in the right hand of the deceased were probably the hairs of the respondent who was allegedly implicated in this crime presumably insinuating that the deceased had grabbed the hairs of the respondent in the course of the crime.
However, he submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence from the prosecution such as a fight or a struggle between the respondent and the deceased, this is seen not to be the only irresistible inference to be drawn bearing in mind the intimate relationship between the respondent and the deceased.
He said that in any event, without the scientific evidence of DNA profiling and comparison in view of the blood specimen of the respondent was not being proved, the prosecution’s argument of relying on the hair would be fallacious.
Ram also submitted that looking at this strand alone, it cannot be said conclusively that was the only hypothesis this court can arrive at. Bearing in mind that the respondent is a married man and a senior police officer; having an affair with the deceased might be detrimental to the respondent’s marital status as well as to his reputation or prospect in the police force.
The counsel said that such version of the police report lodged by the respondent could logically cover up his illicit affairs with the deceased. This is an example of one of the suppositions; there may certainly be others whether for personal reasons or perhaps even on religious grounds.
Ram further said that the mere fact that a police report was allegedly fabricated, to this court, though proof, was insufficient to establish conclusively that the maker had done so to cover his commission of the crime in the absence of any other cogent strands of evidence to substantiate it such a good motive to kill.
Counsel Rizwandean Bukhari M. Borhan assisted Ram.