மன்னர் ஆட்சி மட்டும் இருந்த காலத்திலே
மின்னும் அரசியல் நக்கத் திரங்கள் யாருமுண்டோ?
தன்னைக் குற்றப் ப்டுத்தி நெடிய வழக்கொன்றிலே
முன்னில் நிறுத்தி ஒறுத்த்ல் கருதின நிகழ்வரிதோ?
காலம் மாறி அரசும் விதிகளும் மாறியதால்
நீல வான்கீழ் நின்றவர் யார்க்கும் வழக்குவரும்!
நூலின் படியே நுவலும் வழக்குகள் இன்றுபல!
மீளும் வாய்ப்பும் பவலாம் கேளுமே இவ்வழக்கை.
நக்கத்திரங்கள் - விண்மீன்கள்
ஒறுத்தல் - தண்டித்தல் .
மீளும் வாய்ப்பு - மேல் முறையீட்டில் குற்றத்திலிருந்து விடுபடும் நன்மை .
http://www.malaysia-today.net/proving-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/
Joshua Wu
In light of the ongoing Sodomy II trial, the following are some basics of the criminal justice system that we should be informed or even reminded of
(i) It is the job of prosecution to prove that the accused committed the offence. This is in line with the legal maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit (translated: “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”)
(ii) The defence merely needs to raise certain discrepancies regarding the case, and the accused would be acquitted, provided the court is satisfied that otherwise, the conviction would be an unsafe one
(iii) The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. It is a higher burden of proof than that of civil law (i.e. on the balance of probabilities) because the liberty of the accused is at stake (in Anwar’s case, five years imprisonment or more)
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team led by former Federal Court judge, Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram started off well. They raised a myriad of questionable issues, thus casting a lot of doubt in the prosecution’s case
The first concerned Anwar’s alleged alibi. Sri Ram said that the defence did not pursue the alibi because the police had intimidated the main alibi witness, who is the owner of the condominium.
If indeed the accusation is true, it would further mar the already damaged reputation of our police force as such scare tactics would prevent Anwar from getting a fair trial (contrary to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Malaysia is a signatory but has yet to ratify)
Secondly, there was no evidence of sexual penetration. This claim by Sri Ram was based on medical reports. If it can be conclusively proven that there was an absence of sexual penetration in the anus, there can be no sodomy.
However, the testimonies of expert witnesses tend to contradict one other, thus the difficulty in reach an absolute conclusion whether or not there was in fact sexual penetration
Next is regarding the lubricant. It was not mentioned in the police report made by Saiful and popped up for the first time during the trial. Perhaps Saiful forgot to mention it because he was traumatized?
Oddly enough, the lubricant was not on list of exhibits during trial and was even mishandled by the investigating officer who gave it back to Saiful instead of keeping it as evidence. Considering the controversy surrounding the lubricant, I am of the opinion that the lubricant shouldn’t be taken into account
Saiful’s credibility is undoubtedly questionable. He insisted that during the ordeal, some K-Y Jelly spilled onto the carpet. However, the police investigation revealed that no stain was found on the carpet. There’s clearly an inconsistency in his testimony
Besides that, Sri Ram pointed out the ridiculousness in which the underwear Saiful wore was washed but the latter’s anus was left untouched, hence preserving the DNA evidence. On top of that, Anwar’s semen was found on underwear not worn on the day of the alleged sodomy. I’m no conspiracy theorist but the possibility of the evidence being planted exists
