would pick either quarrels or fights with people. Lim had once used a chair to brutally hit his younger sister and it caused her to suffer a permanent spinal injury, and he often abused his wife severely. One of these instances included Lim pulling his wife's hair very hard as he was enraged at her telling him to buy chicken rice when the stall turned out to be closed, and another was about him hurling an iron pipe at his wife for nagging at him to go have dinner when he was busy repairing a friend's motorcycle. Trial of Lim Lye Hock Prosecution's case On 24 March 1993, 33-year-old Lim Lye Hock stood trial at the High Court for the murder of Tan Hui Ngin. He was represented by Thomas Tham and Mansur Hussain, while the trial prosecutor was P. Arul Selvamalar. Justice Lai Kew Chai was appointed as the presiding judge of the case. Dr Clarence Tan, the forensic pathologist in charge of the autopsy, was the first prosecution witness to take the stand. Dr Tan testified that the severe skull fractures on Tan Hui Ngin's head were the main cause of her death, and he considered that the brick found nearby the scene was the most likely murder weapon used by Lim to bludgeon the victim's head with. He also stated that based on the exposure of Tan's breasts through the pulling of her shirt and bra, and the position and posture Tan was laid while in death, it was possible that some form of sexual assault had happened on her, although the high state of decomposition hindered the accuracy of the tests for any sign of sperms or semen at her vagina. Dr Tan also clarified in court that Lim did not engage in necrophilia, a form of sexual intercourse with or attraction towards corpses. The prosecution therefore argued that Lim had in fact raped Tan before intentionally killing her by bludgeoning her on the head fatally. Tee Guat Kiyau, Lim's wife who was a Malaysian, was another crucial witness for the prosecution, as she heard her husband confessing to her about killing Tan. However, the defence counsel argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to call upon Tee as a witness for their case, as under the Evidence Act, any communication between the husband and wife should be considered as marital communication and thus privileged,