By : Sushma Veera

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA: If housewife Yim Pek Ha had indeed abused her maid, as alleged, she would have been the first person to leave her house - but she did not.

In fact, neither Yim nor her husband, Hii Ik Ting, had acted suspiciously when their maid, Nirmala Bonat, was found and brought back to their apartment by security guards on May 17, 2004.

This was one of many points counsel Jagjit Singh and Akbardin Abdul Kader raised in their submission at the end of the defence's case in the Sessions Court yesterday.

Yim, 40, a former air stewardess, is charged with having scorched Nirmala with a hot iron and scalded her with hot water at her Villa Putra condominium in Jalan Tun Ismail here in January, March and April, 2004, and having hit her with a metal cup on May 17, 2004.

Noting that Yim and her husband even went as far as to allow the security guards to take Nirmala away and make a police report, Akbardin contended that this was consistent with the conduct of people who were innocent, with nothing to hide.

"The accused and her husband would have done all they could to prevent Nirmala from getting to the police if they were indeed guilty," he submitted.

He said that according to the defence's two expert witnesses, if the alleged abuse had taken place, Nirmala would have shown some form of resistance or defence. "But, in this case, there was none."

He said that Hii had also testified that Nirmala had never complained to him about the alleged abuse.

"Why should she keep quiet and not tell Hii when she knew for a fact that he would have certainly done something to stop the abuse, if indeed it was true?

"Nirmala admitted that she did not tell Hii about the alleged abuse by his wife."

Hii had also said repeatedly that if his wife was a violent and abusive person and had assaulted Nirmala, he would have divorced her.

"But he stayed with her through all these years, even when his wife was charged, because he trusted her," said Akbardin.

Jagjit said that although police had recorded a statement from Fermina Anunut (a cousin of Nirmala's) and produced it in court, she was not called as a witness by the prosecution.

"This is despite the fact that the police had indicated that Fermina was a potential material witness in the case.

"Instead, she was sent back to Indonesia without executing any bond for reasons known only to the prosecution. They also did not offer Fermina as a witness to the defence."

Akbardin said the prosecution also failed to call evidence to rebut Fermina's statement, in which she claimed that Nirmala had been admitted to a mental hospital in Indonesia and had a tendency to hurt herself.

"The prosecution should have called a witness to rebut the statement," he said.

Jagjit contended that as the prosecution's case was tainted with numerous contradicting and material discrepancies, the defence had succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt in the case.

"Nirmala, by her own admission, is untruthful and, as such, she is not a credible witness. Her credibility is clearly tainted and blemished as she lied in her testimony on several occasions. "For example, Nirmala said she was admitted to hospital (after the alleged abuse) for two weeks when, actually, she was warded for three days."

Hearing before judge Akhtar Tahir continues.