The Court of Appeal in Ajman upheld a acquittal, which was ruled by a court of first instance against a Gulf and her son, accused of assaulting a director in one of the departments and threatening to slaughter, because the court is not satisfied with the statements of the victim and witness statements.
The complainant said, in the investigation of the Public Prosecution, that she was at her workplace, when the accused complained that the service was disconnected from her home, and she informed her that she had returned checks, and that she must pay them first. In a state of disagreement over the payment mechanism, the accused yelled at her and contacted her son, who attended. In turn and threatened by murder.
She added that she did not attend the incident but was told by the staff members that the woman had insulted her, and that her son would run over her by car.
Asked the son denied the charge, he said that his mother contacted him because of a problem faced in that department and went there, but he was surprised that the amount summoned the security men to get his mother out of the place, did not react only to the question about the person who did it, and then came the police.
An eyewitness stated that she was at the head of her work in the department, and the woman came and asked to re-serve, so she was told that this could only be done through the department where the complainant works, and then they discussed together, and she did not like the accusation, which shouted out loud. You are one ignorant and not educated », and after the exit of her colleague began to insult her again, and said:« God will send my son to slaughter her in front of her house », and contacted him already, and when he attended he was flustered and kept asking:« Who insulted my mother », and the reviewers intervened to calm him, and called Security cops.
For her part, the accused mother said that she had reviewed the department and interviewed the complaining employee, and was surprised by the latter accusing her of illegally restoring service and has photos proving this, pointing out that she deplored the filming of her house without her knowledge, as a violation of the privacy of the place They have to pay the fine if they want to recover the service, and then escalate the situation.
The defendant's lawyer, Mohammed al-Awami al-Mansouri, demanded that the cameras at the scene be emptied to verify the incident. The court authorized him to receive a copy of the recording, but no registration was brought.
Al-Mansouri argued that the complainant said in the prosecutor's investigation that she did not exist and did not hear any threat from the defendants.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendants were innocent, confirming in the ruling that they did not prove that they prevented the employee from carrying out her duties, and there was no violence against her. The court does not reassure the complainant's statements because they were heard by witnesses who do not reassure the court as well. From any certain proof of the charge, the conviction is based on assertiveness and certainty, not suspicion or probability.
The court did not rest assured the statements of the victim and witnesses.