[Public Prosecutor vs Rutinin Bin Sulaiman – K42-60-2010] impersonation, it is up to the accused to tender evidence to support such a defence. In any event, the prosecution witnesses testified that it is not possible to spoof both the IP address and the MAC address at the same time. As there is no expert opinion evidence to the contrary, the learned Sessions 190 Court Judge should have not considered the possibility of spoofing in the instant case at the end of the case for the prosecution. The learned Session Court Judge considered the presence of customers in the shop at the material time. However, P.W. 13 who is an employee of the 195 accused did not say in her statement taken during investigation that there were two other customers in the shop at the material time. She only mentioned the presence of customers in the shop at the trial. The accused himself did not mention during investigation that others could have posted the remark in question. There was no evidence that any other person used 200 the computer at the time in question. The accused was present in the shop that evening. It was a hand phone repair shop. It was not a cyber café whose computer account is open for public use. The employees of the accused did not say that they used the computer at the material time or had posted the remark in question. They also did not say that any particular 205 customer had used the computer at the time in question. As for the alleged break in the chain of evidence, the prosecution witness had correctly identified the computer that was seized and sent for analysis. It is not a requirement that an exhibit should remain in the sight of the 210 investigating officer at all times. It is sufficient that he is able to identify from the label attached to it. Therefore the fact that the computer was “checked in” is not a ground for holding that there was a break in the chain 8