PUTRAJAYA - The Male Y DNA sample in the Sodomy II case belongs to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the prosecutor contended in the Federal Court.
Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said the Opposition Leader was the sole occupant in the lock-up cell when he was detained overnight on July 16, 2008.
He said it was pertinent to peruse evidence given by five police officers with regard to the identification of Male Y.
He said prosecution witness, Nik Rosmady Nik Ismail, had testified that the lock-up cell was clear and empty before two police officers brought Anwar in.
"No other persons are allowed to get into the lock-up," he said.
He said there was a direct evidence from the police officers including the investigating officer, that they saw Anwar bring in a mineral water bottle when he came to the lock-up.
"Nobody will carry a mineral water bottle unless to drink from it," he said.
He said another police officer, DSP Yahya Abdul Rahman brought in a packet containing a Good Morning towel, a toothbrush, a toothpaste tube and a soap bar on July 17, 2008 and gave it to his colleague for Anwar's usage.
(DNA samples derived from the toothbrush, towel and bottle was labelled as Male Y.)
He said there was no conspiracy to frame Anwar for sodomy.
"It is easy to say that I (police officer) saw him (Anwar) drinking or I saw him wiping his face from the towel or saw him blowing his nose using the towel.
"None of the officers say this, but just say what they saw. It is not conspiracy," he argued.
He said that Anwar's private parts were examined by the doctor at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur where a cotton bud was inserted into his anus.
"We never use this although it could provide a good DNA sample. This cotton bud would have been a powerful DNA sample source," he argued.
He said there was circumstantial evidence to link the recovery of those items with Anwar.
"As the appellant (Anwar) left the lock up cell, the toothbrush and towel were found on the (lock up) floor. This indicates that the appellant had indeed used the items, otherwise how could the items in the plastic packet given to him be opened?" he argued.
Muhammad Shafee also argued that the Evidence Act 1950 did not state that illegally obtained evidence was not admissible.
He argued that anything relevant to the charge was admissible under the same Act as long as its probative value were to be higher than its prejudicial factor.
"(However), it is not illegally obtained evidence as his arrest was lawful for a sodomy charge. He is the last person not to know about such a charge," he said.
He also argued that Anwar's arrest was valid and that he was informed of his grounds for his arrest.
"He was informed as soon as he landed at the city police headquarters. There is no infringement of his constitutional rights," he said.