HKSAR v. NALBO KRISHNA KUMAR

DCCC 642/2021

[2022] HKDC 886

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 642 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. 

THE BACKGROUND

2.  The prosecution’s case against the defendant was this: the defendant and Ms Limbu Shasi Kala, PW1, were husband and wife living together at Room 2108 Siu Lok House, Siu Hong Court, Tuen Mun in the New Territories (hereinafter referred to as “the Premises”)  at the time of the alleged wounding.  The offence was said to have occurred on the evening of 18 March 2021 inside the Premises and the defendant was accused of hitting on PW1’s head by a sharp object, as a result of which PW1 required stitches to her head after she was sent to hospital.

3.  The defence put forward was that there was no attack on PW1 and that the injury sustained by PW1 was possibly caused by herself falling over during which she hit her head either against the table or the chair inside the Premises.

4.  The prosecution called three witnesses in support of the charge, namely PW1, who as I have mentioned earlier was the victim of the charge and the wife of the defendant; Ms Poon May Ying, PW2, who was the security guard of Siu Lok House, Siu Hong Court, Tuen Mun and Ms Luk Duen Yee, PW3, who gave expert evidence on DNA analysis.

5.  At the conclusion of the prosecution case, no submission of no case to answer in respect of the charge was made by the defence.  I found there was a case to answer on the charge.

6.  As of his right, the defendant elected to give evidence but called no further witness.

THE ISSUES

7.  This was essentially a one-against-one case, depending heavily on the evidence of PW1 and that of the defendant.  PW1 and the defendant had given different accounts of the incident. The defence suggested PW1 had a motive to frame the defendant. There was no suggestion in this case that the defendant was so drunk that he did not form the mens rea required. This boiled down to a problem of credibility.

ADMITTED FACTS

8.  Facts have been admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, Exhibit P4, including the production of the photographs of the Premises and the interior and exterior of Siu Lok House, Exhibit P1(1 to 37)  and a photograph of the injury sustained by PW1, Exhibit P6.  The CCTV footage from Siu Lok House and six screen captures taken from the CCTV footage have also been admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3(1 to 6) respectively.

9.  It was admitted that on 18 March 2021 at about 11:20 pm, the defendant was arrested by PC17687 in the vicinity of Siu Hong Court, Tuen Mun.  During enquiries, the defendant stated that he did not know the reason why PW1 had an injury to her head. Under caution the defendant remained silent.  In his record of interview, which was taken on 19 March 2021, with the assistance of the Nepalese interpreter, the defendant denied assaulting his wife with a chopper.

10.  It was also admitted that a chopper seized from the Premises (produced as Exhibit P5 and as shown in Exhibit P1(36)) was examined by the Government Chemist and found to have no traces of blood on the blade or handle.  In relation to the chopper, it was further admitted that it was seized on 18 March 2021 by DPC28330 from the top of the wardrobe in the Bedroom belonging to PW1 and the defendant inside the Premises (hereinafter referred to as “the Bedroom”).

11.  Three Medical Reports on PW1 dated 20 May 2021, 27 May 2021 and 10 May 2022 were produced by agreement and marked as Exhibit P8A, P7A and P8B respectively.

12.  Exhibit P7A was prepared by Dr Leung Chi Ho of the Department of Accident & Emergency of Tuen Mun Hospital.  There it was stated that PW1 was examined on 18 March 2021.  Medical examinations revealed the followings:-

(a)  There was a scalp laceration wound measuring around 4 centimetres;

(b)  There was no other wound found;

(c)  She was awake and alert; and

(d)  There was no focal neurological sign elicited. Computer tomography of brain showed no fracture and no intracranial haemorrhage.

13.  Exhibit P8A and Exhibit P8B were prepared by Dr Lung Chi Yeung, Matthew of the Department of Neurosurgery of Tuen Mun Hospital. Dr Lung revealed that PW1 was admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery of Tuen Mun Hospital from 19 March 2021 to 23 March 2021.  On physical examination, there was a 5 centimetre scalp laceration over the right frontal region.  Plain computed tomographic scan of the brain at 12:29 am on 19 March 2021 showed no obvious intracranial haemorrhage or skull fracture. Suturing of her scalp laceration was performed under local anaesthesia. Her stitches were removed seven days after suturing.

PROSECUTION CASE

The evidence of PW1 (Ms Limbu Shasi Kala)

14.  Having been informed of her right to apply for exemption from obligation to give evidence against the defendant under Section 57A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, PW1 decided not to seek to apply for exemption and elected to testify in court.

15.  PW1 was married to the defendant in 1990.  They resided together with their younger son aged about 26 at the Premises.  She was a housewife.  The defendant was a construction worker and he usually went out for work at about 6 am until 9 pm. As the defendant sometimes returned home after 11 pm, PW1 chose to eat with the younger son first before the defendant came home.

16.  On 18 March 2021 at about 9:15 pm, the defendant came home while PW1 was in the kitchen of the Premises preparing vegetables.  The younger son was in the park and therefore there was no one else in the Premises except PW1 and the defendant.  PW1 asked the defendant from the kitchen why he came home early.  The defendant suddenly got angry and talked to her very loudly by saying the words to the effect “Why do you ask me this question; I can come home anytime I want”.  PW1 then came out from the kitchen to the living room and responded by saying to the defendant the words to the effect “I’m your wife, I have a right to ask”.  A quarrel between the two then ensured and the defendant talked to her angrily.  PW1 said when they were arguing she noticed the smell of alcohol coming from the defendant but she did not pay attention to his face as she was sitting on the sofa watching television.  He kept asking her angrily “Why did you ask me this question”.  PW1 again responded and said she had the right to ask.  She saw the defendant pacing up and down inside the Premises and he was seen walking in and out of the kitchen about two to three times while PW1 was still sitting on the sofa watching television.  PW1 did not pay attention to what he was doing and did not know why he was moving around in the Premises. 

17.  While PW1 was still sitting on the sofa in the living room, she was suddenly hit on the head with a sharp object which she did not see.  PW1 said when she was hit on the head the defendant was just standing next to her.  After she was hit, the defendant went into the Bedroom quickly and came out again.  He then fled from the Premises immediately down the stairs instead of taking the lift.  As PW1’s head was bleeding, she used her both hands to cover her bleeding head, gave chase down the stairs and asking the defendant why he did this to her.  PW1 followed him down some stairs.  As she finally did not catch up with the defendant, she ended up taking a lift on unknown floor to the ground floor lobby where she sought assistance from a security guard.

18.  PW1 was subsequently sent to Tuen Mun Hospital for medical treatment.  She said she felt very painful and had dizziness and almost lost consciousness after she was hit on the head.  She described when she was chasing after the defendant, her bloodstains were found everywhere.

19.  In examination-in-chief PW1 marked the position of the defendant with a blue “X” on P1(4)  having said that the sofa at the time was actually closer to the wall seen behind it in the photograph.  She confirmed that bloodstains found on the floor and table in the Premises, the smoke lobby door and the stairs from the 20^th floor to 13^th floor as shown in the photograph album P1(3 to 5) and P1(15 to 31) were her bloodstains from the head injury she sustained.  She also identified the injury she had sustained on her head as shown in the photograph marked as Exhibit P6.  She confirmed she sustained a 5 centimetre laceration over her scalp which required suturing with seven stitches. 

20.  PW1 said the quarrel lasted for about 15 minutes.  Exhibit P5 was the only chopper at home and it was usually used by her for cutting vegetables and meat.  On the evening of 18 March 2021, she used the Exhibit P5 to cut vegetables and she did not remove it from the kitchen.  She had no idea why it was later found on the top of the wardrobe inside the Bedroom as shown in Exhibit P1(10)  and P1(11).

21.  In cross-examination, PW1 agreed she sponsored the defendant and their sons to come to Hong Kong in 2004.  She agreed she had disagreements with the defendant over the years and disagreements became even stronger recently prior to the incident.  When put by the defence that disagreements arose as to the division of marital property and the defendant’s jealousy for her friends.  PW1 denied.  It was also put to PW1 that the defendant was upset and jealous as PW1 was not always at home.  PW1 replied the defendant was angry when she merely went to the market with his mother.

22.  PW1 said it was not her but the defendant who had mentioned about divorce.  She agreed that the marital property, that the Premises which was jointly owned by her and the defendant had been sold after the incident.  Consequently, she received her share over HK$1 million in sale proceeds.  PW1 said the defendant had never contributed any money towards the property.  PW1 said what they always argued about was the defendant’s gambling problem.  He liked playing cards and got into a gambling habit which resulted in his not being always at home.  He sometimes came home at around 2 am and the food that she cooked had already become cold.

23.  In cross-examination PW1 agreed that on 18 March 2021 the defendant left home for work at about 5:30 am.  She agreed she went out for a morning walk at about 4:45 am that day, but not 3 am as suggested.  PW1 denied calling the defendant many times and argued with him over the phone before he came home that day. 

24.  It was put to PW1 that due to frustration with the defendant, PW1 started drinking wine.  She disagreed.  It was put that she even tried to scare the defendant by jumping out from the window, threatened to hurt herself by holding the chopper to her own neck just to show to the defendant how upset and frustrated she was.  PW1 denied all these allegations.

25.  It was also put to PW1 that the younger son has sometimes hidden the chopper and the screwdriver from her in order not to let her have access to them and hurt herself.  PW1 denied and said her younger son had never touched the chopper.

26.  In cross-examination PW1 agreed she drunk wine occasionally but the bottle of wine put on the table as shown in Exhibit P1(3)  belonged to the defendant.  PW1 denied asking the defendant to bring a bottle of wine for her.  She also denied drinking wine while she was waiting for the defendant to come home that evening.

27.  It was put to PW1 that as soon as the defendant got home on the evening of 18 March 2021, she started arguing with him straightaway.  PW1 denied arguing with the defendant. She said she only asked the defendant why he came home early but the defendant started getting angry and blamed her for asking such a question.  PW1 disagreed that the defendant left the Premises because he did not want to argue with her anymore.

28.  It was also put to PW1 by the solicitor for the defendant, Mr Littlewood, that as the defendant wanted to avoid her from using the chopper to scare him by holding it against her own neck, the defendant then went into the kitchen, took the chopper and put it on the top of the wardrobe in order to hide it from her.  PW1 disagreed.

29.  It was put to PW1 that she was drunk that evening because she was so upset about the defendant.  She disagreed.  She said she did not drink any alcohol that evening.

30.  It was put that on seeing the defendant fleeing from the Premises she immediately chased after him.  In the course of it, she fell over and hit her head against the table or chair.  She disagreed.  When asked why there was no blood on the sofa, PW1 explained that after she was hit by the defendant, she was holding her head with both hands around the top of her head.  She disagreed that she actually hurt herself and blamed the defendant for her injury.

The evidence of PW2 (Ms Poon May Ying)

31.  She was a security guard at Siu Lok House, Siu Hong Court, Tuen Mun.  She was led through her evidence and was not cross-examined by the defence.  PW2 said in evidence while she was on duty a few minutes after 10 pm on the night of the incident, she saw PW1 in the lobby putting both hands on her bleeding head.  PW2 was so frightened as PW1 had blood on her face, her clothes and on the floor of the lobby.  She immediately called her supervisor for assistance. PW1 was eventually taken away for medical treatment by ambulance.

Evidence of PW3 (Ms Luk Duen Yee)

32.  She was the Government Chemist and there was no challenge to her expertise on DNA analysis. Her written statement was produced by agreement between the parties pursuant to section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, Exhibit P10.  Her evidence was not challenged by the defence.

33.  PW3 said the chopper seized from the Premises was delivered to her on 28 April 2021 for examination.  The results of the examination were that:-

(1)  No blood was found on the top and bottom edges of the handle and the blade cutting edge through visual examination and a presumptive test for blood;

(2)  No human DNA was found on the blade cutting edge; and

(3)  Human DNA was found on the top and bottom edges of the handle but subsequent typing analysis gave typing results that were considered uninterpretable due to the poor quality of the DNA recovered.

34.  PW3 further stated that if a knife was used to cut a person unless it was a graze with no blood, then she would expect to find some DNA on it.  In examination-in-chief when asked if there were any possible reasons why no DNA was found on the chopper when it has been in fact used to hit a person, PW3 was of the opinion that any DNA or blood left on the chopper could have been removed by the wiping of the towel, cloth or T-shirt, use of the cleaning agent or water.

THE DEFENCE CASE

35.  The defendant said he and PW1 were married for about 32 years living together at the Premises.  They always had disagreements especially about division of the marital property.  PW1 always wanted to sell the property, but this was against his will as he wanted to keep it.

36.  On 18 March 2021, the defendant went to work at about 5:30 am.  When he went out, PW1 had already left home around 3 am.  On that day PW1 called him several times threatening him over the phone.  PW1 always threatened him whenever she got drunk.  Just before he returned home that evening, PW1 called him again asking him to come home as quickly as possible.  He asked if she wanted him to bring any food home.  She said she would cook and there was no need for him to bring any food home, but she asked him to buy a bottle of wine for her.

37.  The defendant said after he went into the Premises that evening, PW1 was sitting on the sofa watching television in the living room.  He then put down the bottle of wine for PW1 on the table as shown in Exhibit P1(3)  and proceeded to put down his lunchbox in the kitchen.  Immediately after he put down the lunchbox, PW1 suddenly got up from the sofa and came towards him.  She said to him words to the effect “Either you are here or me”.  He noticed PW1 was drunk and swaying.  He observed PW1 could hardly stand by herself.  On seeing this, the defendant decided to leave the Premises as he did not want to argue with PW1.  He chose not to take the lift but went down the stairs to the lobby instead.  The defendant said he only stayed in the Premises for about 2 to 3 minutes during which he did not go into the Bedroom.  He even did not have time to put down his bag.

38.  He denied assaulting PW1.  He did not see how PW1 was injured and he first came to know about the injury when told by someone following being spoken to by the police.

39.  In cross-examination the defendant agreed he and PW1 usually argued when PW1 got drunk.  It was put to him that if that was the case the defendant should have tried to stop her from drinking if possible.  When asked why he still bought a bottle of wine for PW1 that evening, the defendant replied she did not listen to him and he could not succeed.  He agreed he drunk wine sometimes but denied the bottle of wine that he bought that evening was for his own consumption.

40.  In cross-examination the defendant denied when he came home, PW1 was in fact in the kitchen preparing vegetables.  He also denied PW1 asked him why he came home early.  He agreed he sometimes came home after 11 pm if he needed to work overtime and he would telephone PW1 beforehand.

41.  In cross-examination the defendant agreed after he entered the Premises that evening, he simply put down the bottle of wine on the table and the lunchbox in the kitchen.  He did not do anything to upset PW1 and he did not know why PW1 suddenly argued with him without a reason.

42.  The defendant accepted the phrase “Either you are here or me” uttered by PW1 meant either PW1 would hurt him or herself.  He adored and loved his wife.  However, he was too frightened that evening that PW1 might kill him.  He felt he needed to leave the Premises quickly in order to protect himself.

43.  The defendant said in examination-in-chief and cross-examination that he did not know why the chopper was found on the top of the wardrobe inside the Bedroom.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS

44.  In reaching my verdict I remind myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the prosecution throughout.  The defendant has to prove nothing.  I direct myself that I must be sure of the defendant’s guilt before I can convict.  On the other hand, if the court thinks that the defence evidence pointing to innocence is true or may be true, it would follow that the defence has raised sufficient doubt in the prosecution case and the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.

45.  Furthermore, when I am making findings of facts, I note that I am entitled to infer existence of other facts from facts.  However, the primary facts upon which I may draw any inference of facts must be either facts admitted by the defendant or facts found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  I also note that no inference of facts can be drawn against the defendant unless that inference is the only reasonable and irresistible inference arising from the facts admitted or proved.  On the other hand, even if pieces of facts each on its own will not be sufficient to support any inference of facts to be drawn, they may be taken together to form a body of facts upon which a proper inference of facts may be drawn.  It is because circumstantial evidence works cumulatively, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities, DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729.

46.  The defendant is a man with a clear record, and I warn myself of the likelihood and propensity of a man in his position committing this offence.  It is less likely for him to commit the alleged offence and it is more likely for him to give credible evidence.

47.  As mentioned earlier, the case was one against one and because of the lack of an independent witness I would exercise care and caution when dealing with the evidence of PW1.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

48.  In reaching my verdict, I have carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of Mr Wong and Mr Littlewood.  The evidence of PW2 and PW3 were not challenged by the defence.  I accept their evidence.

49.  Having considered all the evidence before me, I find PW1 to be honest and truthful.  She frankly told the court that she did not see what she was hit with, only stating it was a sharp object.  She also candidly agreed that she was hit only once on the head.  I am satisfied that she did not try and exaggerate her evidence or overstate it.  I am satisfied that she told the court what she heard and what she saw in a straightforward manner.  She has neither embellished nor fabricated her evidence. 

50.  I do not ignore Mr Littlewood’s submission that PW1 said the defendant had argued with her for about 15 minutes that evening but the screen captures prove her evidence in this aspect was not accurate.  Admitted in evidence was that the screen captures of the CCTV seized from Siu Lok House were accurate captures of the CCTV footage shown and the time stamps on them were accurate.  The screen captures on the evening of 18 March showed:-

(a)  At 2154 hours the defendant entering the ground floor lobby of Siu Lok House, Exhibit P3(1);

(b)  At 2155 hours the defendant inside the lift of Siu Lok House, Siu Hong Court, Exhibit P3(2);

(c)  At 2207 hours, the defendant leaving from the ground floor lobby of Siu Lok House, Exhibit P3(3);

(d)  At 2208 hours, PW1 inside the lift of Siu Lok House, Siu Hong Court, Exhibit P3(4); and

(e)  At 2208 hours, PW1 in the ground floor lobby of Siu Lok House asking assistance from PW2, Exhibit P3(5).

Mr Littlewood submitted that as revealed from the screen captures, the defendant could only have been at home for about 2 to 3 minutes, not the 15 minutes as PW1 claimed. It was submitted that PW1 had exaggerated her evidence regarding the duration of the defendant’s stay in the Premises.

51.  Regarding Mr Littlewoood’s criticism on this point, PW1 explained in cross-examination that it was only her guess that they had argued for about 15 minutes.  When the defendant came home, it “seemed” to her that it was 9:15 pm given that the defendant used to return home late usually after 11 pm.  She then went on to explain that while she was arguing with the defendant, she was not looking at the time and it felt like they had been arguing for 15 minutes.  I accept the times that PW1 had given in her evidence were purely based on her estimation.  Therefore, I reject the defence submission that PW1’s evidence was exaggerated in this aspect.

52.  Mr Littlewood also drew my attention to the contents of the statement of Dr Leung Chi Ho dated 14 May 2022, Exhibit P7.  Dr Leung stated that PW1 had complained of loss of consciousness and transient amnesia after the head injury upon her admission to hospital that day.  I believe Mr Littlewood tended to suggest that PW1 could have failed to remember what actually happened that evening.  I note that, in cross-examination, PW1 explained what actually told the doctor was that she sometimes wanted to do something, but she might suddenly forget what it was.  I am satisfied that her evidence was clear and straightforward.  When cross-examined, she never dodged any questions and managed to recall the particulars of the incident on 18 March 2021 and answered the questions without hesitation.  I find there is no merit in this submission.

53.  Having carefully considered the defendant’s evidence, I completely reject his account of events.  I have no doubt that what he alleged to have happened was entirely untrue.  For instance, the defendant said when he got back to the Premises, PW1 was drunk and swaying.  The defendant even said PW1 could hardly stand by herself.  If that was the case, what made him so frightened that he would get hurt by PW1 and even flee from the Premises immediately?  I note from the photographs Exhibit P1(16 to 31)  which showed the stairwell where PW1’s bloodstains were clearly seen on the stairs all the way down.  I find implausible his account that if PW1 was in the state of being quite drunk, how could she follow the defendant down numerous flights of stairs from level 20^th floor to level 13 with her injured head.  I have no hesitation in rejecting his evidence that PW1 was drunk at the time.

54.  In cross-examination the defendant agreed that phrase “Either you are here or me” uttered by PW1 meant either PW1 would hurt him or herself.  I find equally implausible his account that the defendant claimed he “adored and loved” his wife, and he even bought a bottle of wine for PW1 when he knew she would get into an argument with him again if she got drunk, yet on hearing his wife say words to the effect “Either you are here or me”, he decided to immediately flee from the Premises.  His evidence was clearly self-contradictory.  He did not even bother to stay and remain with his wife trying to calm her down or do anything preventative to avoid his wife hurting herself, such as hiding the chopper or screwdriver from her as what Mr Littlewood suggested to PW1 in cross-examination.  I reject the defendant’s evidence that PW1 suddenly came towards him and threatening him by saying “Either you are here or me”.

55.  Furthermore, in cross-examination it was suggested to PW1 that the defendant had put the chopper on top of the wardrobe before he left the Premises in order to stop PW1 hurting herself, but I note the defendant said in his evidence-in-chief that he did not know how the chopper came to be on top of the wardrobe. It is no doubt that his evidence was totally inconsistent with what was suggested to PW1 in cross-examination by his solicitor, Mr Littlewood. 

56.  Having considered the defendant’s evidence carefully, I am of the view that his evidence was inherently implausible and incredible.  Despite the fact that he is a man of clear record, I find that he was not a witness of truth.  His evidence was entirely unbelievable.  I reject his evidence in its entirety.  I reject his evidence that he did not strike PW1 on the head with a sharp object.  I reject the defence’s submission that the injury sustained by PW1 was caused by herself falling over inside the Premises and hitting her head on the table or the chair in the photograph as shown in Exhibit P1(3).  I accept PW1’s evidence that her head was bleeding and I am sure the bloodstains found on the table or the chair came from PW1’s injury which was caused by the defendant.

57.  I remind myself that the rejection of the defendant’s evidence does not automatically mean that he must be convicted.  The burden of proof remains on the prosecution at all times.  It remains for this court to be satisfied that the case against the defendant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

58.  Having considered all the evidence before me, I have no reason to reject or disbelieve any part of PW1’s evidence.  She was plainly and obviously a truthful witness.  I do not believe there was any motive for PW1 to frame the defendant.  I find, inter alia, that the following facts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt:-

(1)  On the evening of 18 March 2021 PW1 was cutting vegetables with the chopper, Exhibit P5, in the kitchen before the defendant returned home shortly before 10 pm;

(2)  PW1 did not drink any kind of alcohol that evening;

(3)  When the defendant entered the Premises, PW1 asked him why he came home early;

(4)  A quarrel started between the defendant and PW1;

(5)  PW1 came out from the kitchen and sat on the sofa in the living room to watch television whilst the quarrel was continuing;

(6)  During the quarrel PW1 noticed the smell of alcohol coming from the defendant;

(7)  The defendant continued to talk to PW1 angrily blaming her for asking him such a question;

(8)  During the quarrel, the defendant was seen moving around in the Premises, walking in and out of the kitchen for 2 to 3 times;

(9)  The chopper, Exhibit P5, was the only chopper at home;

(10)  PW1 did not remove the chopper from the kitchen;

(11)  While PW1 was sitting on the sofa, she suddenly felt a sharp object hit her on her head causing her to feel pain;

(12)  She did not see what the object was but did see the defendant standing right next to her;

(13)  The defendant immediately went to the Bedroom and came out again and fled from the Premises;

(14)  PW1’s head began to bleed;

(15)  PW1 chased after the defendant and followed him down the stairs;

(16)  Subsequently PW1 was sent to the hospital for medical treatment with assistance of PW2; and

(17)  The chopper was later found by the police to be put on the top of the wardrobe inside the Bedroom.

59.  From the entirety of the evidence I draw the only reasonable and irresistible inference that during the quarrel the defendant suddenly hit PW1 on the head with a sharp object causing her to bleed on her head.  I also find the chopper which was originally in the kitchen had been taken out by the defendant from the kitchen and subsequently put it on the top of the wardrobe before he fled from the Premises.

60.  The next issue is whether the sharp object that the defendant used to hit PW1 on the head was the chopper, Exhibit P5, or not.  Mr Wong, counsel for the Prosecution, concedes that although the chopper was seized, there was no direct evidence linking it to the injury caused to PW1 and that the evidence was wholly circumstantial.  Mr Littlewood submitted that if the chopper had been used by the defendant, why was it placed on the top of the wardrobe and not removed from the flat.  There was also little time to clean it in any event nor any direct evidence that he had. 

61.  I have not lost sight of PW3’s evidence that no blood and DNA had been found on the seized and examined chopper.  As mentioned earlier, PW3 said the said DNA and/or blood could be removed quite easily such as by the wiping of the cloth, T-shirt or water.  However, I do bear in mind that there is no direct evidence from the prosecution to prove that the defendant had wiped or cleaned the chopper before it was put on the top of the wardrobe.  I find there are a number of reasons why no DNA or blood had been found on the chopper.  However, in the absence of any positive evidence I am not going to make any findings based on the speculation. I am sure what PW1 related in evidence did take place. The fact that there was no blood or DNA found on the chopper does not cause me any doubt about the credibility of PW1.

62.  I am satisfied so I am sure that the irresistible inference is that the defendant hit PW1 on the head with a sharp object causing about 5 centimetre laceration requiring seven stitches.  I am sure that PW1’s scalp laceration mentioned in Exhibit P7 and P8 was the injury caused by the defendant.  Signs of stitches on PW1’s head were also clearly seen on the photograph, Exhibit P6.  The injury she sustained was consistent with the account given by her.  I am satisfied that the injury to PW1 amounted to a wound.  I am sure the defendant used such a sharp object to hit PW1 on her head, one of the vulnerable parts of the human body, with the intent to cause PW1 grievous bodily harm.

63.  I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Littlewood both individually and collectively. Nothing said by him caused me to doubt the findings I have made.  I am satisfied that the defendant wounded PW1 with intent to do PW1 grievous bodily harm.  I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved each of the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and I convict the defendant accordingly.