The character of Aminulrasyid Amzah, gunned down by police less than four months before his 15th birthday, was today put up for scrutiny in the trial involving his death with both the prosecution and defence asking multiple questions about his behaviour and habits.

Also in question by both parties was the teenager's experience driving a car. The boy was too young to hold a driver’s licence when he died on April 26, 2010.

While the prosecution attempted to paint the deceased as filial and well-behaved, the defence cast doubts by establishing that the witness, Aminulrasyid’s sister, cannot vouch for his whereabouts at all times. 

NONE Answering the prosecution, Tuty Shaniza Anum Amzah ( right ), 36, the owner of the Proton Iswara he was driving at that time, testified that her youngest brother had no disciplinary record, was active in sports and academically bright.

"He was close ( manja ) to my mother. He never talked back to her. If he needed to go anywhere he would tell my mother and she would send him there. When he was done he would call my mother and she would pick him up," she said.

She also testified that the Form Three student often watched football matches at a restaurant within walking distance from his home with his friends, but would return by 12am.

"The last time I saw him he was completing his homework," she said.

Tuty also told the court that she has "no knowledge whatsoever" of Aminulrasyid driving prior to this, but is sure that he had never driven her car.

She, however, agreed with defence counsel Salim Bashir's suggestion that she could not be sure of all of the teenager's whereabouts since she only visits her mother's house twice a month.

She also agreed that she cannot be certain that Aminulrasyid had never driven other cars owned by family members.

Appearing defensive when pressed by Salim, Tuty eventually relented and agreed that she cannot be certain of the deceased’s whereabouts at night and that she did not know all of his friends.

She added that she had only heard of Aminulrasyid speaking about Azamuddin Omar, who was in the car with her brother at the time of the incident, but never met him.

Parang's origin unknown

While she testified to not owning and not recognising the parang tendered into evidence yesterday, Tuty agreed with Salim that she cannot rule out the possibility that Aminulrasyid had placed the parang in the car.

NONE Tuty's father-in-law Mahali Ramlan ( left ), whose name is on the Iswara's deed, also told the court that he had no knowledge of the parang and did not recognise it when shown.

Tuty’s husband Muzafar Mahali, too, said that he has never seen the parang, nor has does he know where it came from.

Muzafar, who was in Klang at the time of the incident, testified that he called Tuty at about 3am to say that police were looking for the Iswara as it is “involved in a case”.

The 36-year-old said that he had asked his wife to check if the car was still at the front porch and when she said it was not he told her to check on who was not home.

“She told me Aminulrasyid was missing,” he said.

Tuty earlier testified that she saw the car was “tilted ( terjongket ) at a white wall” at about 4am from the corner of Jalan Makyong 11/2G and Jalan Tarian 11/2, but could not get closer as she was stopped by police, who refused to answer her questions.

She only got a closer look at about 7.30am when the police cordon was removed and the car was about to be towed away.

“I saw that the front was damaged, the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat were bloodstained, and the rear windshield had a gunshot mark,” she said.

Corporal Jenain Subi, 48 is accused of shooting dead the teen following a police chase at Jalan Tarian 11/2G, Section 11, Shah Alam on April 26 this year, and faces 30 years’ jail if convicted.

The trial resumes next Thursday with the testimony of the pathologist.