Accused’s wounds not selfinflicted — pathologist

KOTA KINABALU: A senior consultant forensic pathologist told the High Court here yesterday that he was of the view that the wounds sustained by a police inspector, who allegedly killed a single mother seven years ago, cannot be caused by himself.

Dato’ Dr. Bhupinder Singh A/ L Jeswant Singh, 67, who was testifying before Justice Datuk Nurchaya Hj Arshad, explained that in his opinion the two injuries at the upper back of Ahmad Rizal Umar, 36, was not self-inflicted because a wound should not be so deep as the said wounds.

The second defence witness further explained by showing the two wounds marked on a male mannequin that the direction of the wounds were oblique and rarely seen in self-infliction.

To a question by the judge, who came nearer and sat next to the mannequin while listening to the witness’ explanation about an injury on Ahmad Rizal’s knee, which was also rarely seen as selfinfliction.

“I’ve seen injuries to the knees but not so deep as to cut the tendons to incapacitate the movement of the persons,” explained the witness.

As to Ahmad Rizal’s injury on his left palm, the witness was of the view that the injury was a selfdefence injury.

There were eight injuries sustained by Ahmad Rizal as marked on the mannequin, namely two injuries at the upper back, at the left back armpit, on the knee, on the left palm, on the right shoulder, chest and abdomen.

The explanation plus demonstration on the distributions and patterns of the injuries inflicted on Ahmad Rizal with the help of the mannequin as directed by the court, lasted at about 11.30am.

Ahmad Rizal, who was the first defence witness had opted to give sworn evidence from the witness dock, after the Federal Court here ordered him to enter his defence on the charge of killing a food catering operator Kartini Borhan, 27, at a rented house at Taman Adika in Keningau between 4am and 5am on September 29, 2011.

The charge was under Section 302 of the Penal Code which provides for the mandatory death sentence, upon conviction.

On March 21, the Federal Court here ordered Ahmad Rizal, who was freed from the said charge four years ago, to enter his defence at the High Court here.

The Justices unanimously allowed the prosecution’s appeal against Ahmad Rizal’s acquittal after the court held that the High Court and the Court of Appeals had erred for falling to call Ahmad Rizal to enter his defence.

The judges further held that the lower courts attached too much weight on break in chain of evidence but failed to take into accounts adequately the cumulative affairs of the circumstancial evidence namely:

1) Ahmad Rizal had allegedly lodged a false police report as found by the trial judge

2) There was no sign of break-in at the deceased’s house

3) Ahmad Rizal was the last person at the crime scene

4) Photofit as provided by Ahmad Rizal was allegedly a fabricated

5) Injuries on Ahmad Rizal were not cooperative 6) Motive of Ahmad Rizal On July 22, 2014, the High Court here had freed Ahmad Rizal from the said charge without calling for his defence as the judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Ahmad Rizal.

The prosecution then appealed to the Court of Appeals on January 26, 2016, against Ahmad Rizal’s acquittal for committing the alleged murder was affirmed.

Deputy public prosecutors Khairuddin Hj Idris and Wan Farra Farizza Wan Ghazali handled the trial while counsel Ram Singh, Rizwandean Bukhari M. Borhan and Kimberly Ye represented Ahmad Rizal.

The trial resumes today.