The Federal Supreme Court upheld the Public Prosecution’s appeal against an appeal judgment, which erred in the application of the provisions of Islamic Sharia and law, as it ordered the cancellation of half of the blood money sentenced to a co-accused with a woman, causing a mistake in the death of a person in a traffic accident, without charging the woman the full amount of the blood money.
The Public Prosecution referred a motorcycle driver and a vehicle driver to trial, on charges of causing the death of a person by mistake, as she was charged with four charges, namely, driving a vehicle on the public road without abiding by the traffic signs, rules, and etiquette that it suddenly deviated, which led to an accident A motorcycle bumped, and a vehicle driving without a driving license from the licensing authority, mistakenly injured a person, damaged a vehicle and a motorcycle and made them unfit for use.
The Public Prosecution directed the second accused to drive a motorcycle on the public road without having a driver’s license from the licensing authority, and to drive it without being licensed by the licensing authority, and without being insured, required to punish them.
A court of first instance ruled that the defendants were to be 50/50 dirhams equal to the legal religion in the interest of the heirs of the deceased in the accident, as well as a set of financial penalties for other charges.
Then, the Court of Appeal ruled that the motorcycle driver was acquitted of the accusation of causing the death of the victim, revoking the ruling that obligated him to pay half of the blood money of 100,000 dirhams, and supporting the ruling in that regard.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that it is decided in the court’s jurisdiction that the proper application of the provisions of Islamic Sharia does not harm anyone, and that its rulings are applicable, and every judiciary that contradicts them is nullified, and it was legally prescribed by the text of Article 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it “does not violate the ruling Except what was related to the aspects on which the veto was based, unless fragmentation was not possible. ”The implication of this is that peremptory rulings in Islamic law are applicable, and they are based on the principle of the authenticity of rulings, and the principle of public order.
She pointed out that the appeal judgment violated the provisions of Islamic Sharia, as the full blood money legally prescribed amount of 200 thousand dirhams, and the contested ruling ruled the acquittal of the second defendant, and the cancellation of half of the blood money sentenced to him, without charging the first accused the full blood money, what defects him for violating the provisions Islamic law, including what must be reversed.