[Public Prosecutor vs Rutinin Bin Sulaiman – K42-60-2010] The learned Session Court Judge adverted to the lack of direct evidence as 160 fatal. He has erred in coming to the conclusion as he completely failed to consider the strength of the circumstantial evidence in this case. Circumstantial evidence must be given due weight if it point irresistibly, inexorably and unerringly to the guilt of the accused (see Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1982] 2 MLJ 273, Sunny Ang v PP case [1966] 2 MLJ 195). The 165 circumstance evidence in this case came from P.W. 1, the Telekom Malaysia Bhd witnesses and the forensic expert from Cybersecurity Malaysia. As outlined in the summary of evidence, the prosecution witnesses testified virtually unchallenged that the offensive remark in question was posted on the visitor book of HRH Sultan of Perak’s homepage. The user’s IP address 170 was captured by P.W. 1. This IP address was traced by the internet service provider (Telekom Malaysia Bhd) as having been assigned to the internet account of the accused person at the time the communication was made. P.W. 4, P.W.5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 from Telekom Malaysia Bhd gave evidence that the internet account belonged to the accused. Furthermore, the 175 transaction in question matched the MAC address of the computer that was found with an active internet connection in the shop of the accused person. As recounted earlier, the MAC address is the unique address given by the manufacturer of a particular device. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses simply means that the communication was made from the internet 180 account and the computer of the accused person. The learned Sessions Court Judge considered the submission that the IP and MAC addresses could have been spoofed (impersonated) and that sufficient evidence was not adduced on this point by the prosecution. My respectful view is that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in so holding. 185 The prosecution is not obliged to speculate on potential defences. If there was any evidence of 7