The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that condemned a person who had attempted suicide with the intention of killing himself by injuring his hand, referring his case to the Appeals Court for further consideration, noting that the conviction ruling did not respond to the defendant's defense that he suffers from a mental illness and that his actions were outside his control.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred a person to the trial, as he committed suicide by committing a wound that helped his left hand with the intent to kill himself, and stopped the crime for a reason beyond his control, that he was treated by the police officers and taken to the hospital and provided medical aid to him, demanding that he be punished with the article 335/1 of the Federal Penal Code.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendant be charged with a fine of one thousand dirhams, with a stay of the penalty imposed against him being charged with the accusation, while obliging him to pay the sum of fifty dirhams, the case fees, and the Appeals Court confirmed it.
The convicted person did not accept this jurisdiction, and he appealed to him before the Federal Supreme Court, as his defense stuck to not being criminally responsible for his actions as he suffers from mental illness which is borderline disorder, submitting a medical report stating this.
This appeal was upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, explaining that it was decided - in the jurisdiction of this court - that the substantive defense that defects the ruling is neglecting the response to it is every essential defense that knocks on the court’s hearing and that - if true - would change the face of opinion in the case, and it was The stipulation of Article 60 of the Federal Penal Code that "It is not criminally responsible who was, at the time of the commission of the crime, the lack of awareness or the will of insanity, mental impairment or coma arising from drugs or narcotic or intoxicating substances of any kind given to him by force or ingested without his knowledge of them or For any other reason, the science decides to lose perception or will, if not Dependence on insanity, mental impairment, drugs, narcotic or intoxicating substances, or other things other than a lack or a lack of awareness or will at the time of committing the crime, then this is a mitigating excuse.
The court indicated that the evidence showed that the accused had paid two cases to the trial court that he suffers from a mental illness and is suffering from behavioral and psychological disorders that prevent him from criminal accountability and provided a certificate and a medical report issued by a government hospital, stating that, but the ruling has turned away from this defense at will Or, in response, he established his judiciary by convicting him, based on his recognition of the stage of inquiries and investigations by the Public Prosecution, and he did not face his defense, although it is a fundamental defense that may change by examining the opinion of the case, and then the appeal judgment is defective, which must be reversed with referral.