Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Sun (Used by permission)
by Maria J.Dass

SHAH ALAM (May 22, 2008): The High Court today ruled that the station diary at the Police Special Action Unit (UTK) control room in Bukit Aman, which can give C/Insp Azilah Hadri an alibi, was admissible as a defence exhibit but the content was subject to being proved.

Azilah is the first accused in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial. The UTK personnel and his colleague Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar are charged with murdering the Mongolian woman in a jungle clearing in Mukim Bukit Raja between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006. Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is charged with abetting them.

Last week, Azilah’s lawyers applied to include this piece of evidence during the testimony by Investigating Officer (IO) ASP Tonny Lunggan. The diary entry shows that Azilah was at Bukit Aman at 10.18pm on Oct 19.

However, DPP Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah objected, saying Tonny was not the keeper or maker of the station diary and its entrees, and that this was tantamount to requesting the prosecution to supply the statements of the witnesses to the defence.

After hearing submissions from both sides today, judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin, in making his decision, said: "The station diary is not made by the IO, therefore distinguishable.

"They remain hearsay. The station diary is admissible as a defence exhibit but the content is subject to being proved." The diary, which was labelled IDD428, is now D428.

Earlier, during submission, Azilah’s lawyer Kuldeep said: "This document is our exhibit and relevant to our alibi defence. It shows Azilah was in Bukit Aman at the material time as per the charge. This document was also in the possession and power of the IO."

He said as far as the defence is concerned, the station diary was seized to elicit evidence.

However, Tun Abdul Majid said: "The document can be produced, but the content is something else. Tonny cannot be asked to read out the contents of the relevant entries because he is not the maker. That would tantamount to hearsay."

"It is not proper to put it through the IO as only the maker of the station diary should be put to the stand," he said.

When hearing continued on the 113th day, Azilah’s lawyer Hazman Ahmad grilled Tonny, who is the prosecution’s 75th witness, on his investigation of the crime scene.

Hazman asked Tonny why he only interviewed only two auxiliary policemen on duty that night and not the ones on duty the morning before and after the incident to find out if they had noticed anything suspicious.

Tonny replied that the incident happened during the night and not in the morning.

He disagreed with Hazman when the latter asked him if it was possible that people may have entered the area the morning before and after, and that he may have been able to obtain this additional information if he had spoken to the policemen on duty during the day.

Tonny also said he did not speak to the folk in the nearest village which is about 1km away to see if they had heard the sound of the C4 bomb explosion that night.

Hearing in the afternoon continued with Hazman grilling Tonny about a food stall at the foot of the hill where the narrow road leading to the crime scene begins.

Although Tonny said that he did not notice the stall, Hazman continued to grill him on whether he knew the stall owner and the type of food served.

Tonny then asked: "How am I supposed to know this since I did not notice the stall there?"

Hazman then said Tonny did not understand his question which was aimed at showing that the latter was not aware of the existence of the stall, the owner, the opening times and if there were many people at the stall.

"I know what they serve there - they have sugar cane water, rojak buah...," proclaimed Hazman while someone from the lawyers gallery shouted "roti bom" to the laughter of the others.

Tonny disagreed with Hazman when the latter said he failed to get statements from policemen on duty in the morning, the nearby village folk, the officers in charge of the area and the owner of the plot of land where the murder took place, because he was focused only on prosecuting Azilah.

He also disagreed with Hazman that the investigations he conducted were not complete and perfect.

Tonny said one needed a four-wheel drive to go up to the clearing in the jungle where Altantuya was blown up, but agreed with Hazman that someone could have walked up to the place if they wanted to or gone up with a high-powered motorbike.

Tonny however said the area atop a hill was hidden but familiar to people who go there often.

"Do you know of anyone who goes there?" Hazman asked.

Tonny replied that the second accused (Sirul) goes there for hunting.

Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, Sirul's counsel, stood up and asked that his learned friend put questions in a way that does not invite more queries. Tonny then said he did not know of anyone else who went to the place.

Referring to pictures of bone fragments found at the crime scene by Hazman, Tonny said the bones were not hidden. However, he disagreed that they could be seen easily and added that one could not see the explosion site easily.

Later, Kamarul asked Mohd Zaki to disallow two prejudicial testimonies by Tonny.

"We don't want a trial by the media. As you know, bloggers have been writing all sorts of things, making the sanctity and sacredness of this trial an issue," Kamarul said.

He asked that the court not record the two sweeping statements made by the witness when responding to questions from Hazman, saying the statements were not part of the evidence produced in court.

Mohd Zaki said he did not record the statements. "The media has been reporting what happens in the court ," he said, adding that he would not consider facts reported in blogs and websites.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed