The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that acquitted a person of the charge of insulting a woman, in terms that offend honor, consideration and degradation, stating that the ruling did not deny the issuance of defamation statements from the accused, but justified their issuance to deny his criminal intent, supporting the ruling of the first degree ruling to punish the accused .
In detail, the Public Prosecution referred a person to the criminal trial, accusing him of insulting a woman, and that was in the face of her and in the presence of others, demanding that he be punished.
The first instance court ruled in presence, convicting and punishing the defendant by fining him two thousand dirhams of the charge against him, and obliging him with judicial fees, and referring the civil lawsuit to the competent civil court, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first ruling and again to acquit the accused of acquittal of the charge assigned to him, and rejected the civil prosecution Submitted by the complainant and obligated fees and expenses.
The ruling did not find acceptance by the Public Prosecution, and it challenged it, explaining that "the appeal judgment ruled the acquittal of the accused, based on the lack of criminal intent, in the event that the criminal intent in the crime of insulting is the general criminal intent, not the private intent, and it is achieved with the knowledge of the offender that matters involving insulting are prejudiced. From the fate of the person, and the phrase that he assigned to the victim bears a wound word against the humiliation and degradation of the person of the victim, and this has been proven from her sayings and the testimony of the witness.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecution, explaining that the appeal ruling does not deny the issuance of insults from the accused, but justified their issuance to deny the criminal intent he had, noting that these statements injure the honor and consideration of the victim and degrade it and the law does not require a special intent The availability of the crime of insult and that it is sufficient that the expressions include what is required to punish the slander or his contempt, and this is proven by the ruling of the first degree by valid reasons that have its fixed origin in the papers.
She asserted that the court of the matter has the right to acquit innocence whenever she doubts the validity of attributing the charge to the accused, but that this is conditional on her ruling including what is stated that she has examined the case and took its circumstances and evidence of the evidence that was based on it, ending with the reversal of the appeal judgment, and addressing it pursuant to Article 249/1 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Insulting in law
The Federal Supreme Court has indicated that insulting means insulting the release of the explicit term indicating it, which is the meaning observed in the terminology of the law, which was considered insulting every affliction of a defect or an expression that degrades a person or scratches his person, and the most likely to know the truth of the insulting words is what the judge assures in obtaining to understand the reality In the case, the availability of an offense of public insult must occur in a public place of its nature or by chance. The law does not require a special intent to commit the crime, but it is sufficient to have the general intent that is achieved with the knowledge of the offender that the matters involved in defamation or insult if it were true to him would have required the punishment or slander of the slander.
Also, the attribution of the offense of defamation may be explicit or by means of pun, rotation, and transit with the meanings of the terms