Because the case papers are free of criminal intent

Khaleeji acquitted of covering up the crime of damaging the Lamborghini car

The court decided to accept the appeal in form and in the matter to cancel it.

From the source

The Ras Al Khaimah Misdemeanour Court of Appeals acquitted a Khaleeji accused of covering up another defendant in a Lamborghini car crash case.

The Public Prosecution indictment stated that Al-Khaliji (the second defendant in the case) was in possession of a rented Lamborghini car, which was subjected to a shock and cover-up of the first accused who misled the judiciary by changing the condition of the car committed in the accident, concealing evidence of the crime, and providing false information, knowing that it was not true.

 The court of first instance had fined the second defendant 1000 dirhams, as the verdict was not accepted by him, so he appealed against him.

The attorney for the second defendant, lawyer Mahmoud Shebl, indicated during his plea before the court that the accusations against his client are incorrect and not based on reality or law.

He added that while his client was driving his Lamborghini car, owned by a rental office, an order occurred on the right side of the car. While he was waiting for her to plan the accident, the first defendant came with a "Lexus" car and claimed that he was the one who crashed his car. He told him, "Sorry, I hit your car," and they don't know each other in advance.

He explained that the first accused informed “Saed” that he was the perpetrator of the accident directly, and “Saed” decided that the accident was not identical and they should go to the police station. , lest he impound his aunt's car.

He added that it is established in the statements of the first accused that there is no agreement or knowledge of the second accused of what the first accused said, as he does not know and did not see the real car that committed the accident except at the police station, and that the two accused do not know each other from near or far, and have never before to meet him.

He pointed out that there is no evidence convicting the second accused except for the unfounded statement of the sender, which is the statement of the employee of the "Saed" company, who decided by guessing with the knowledge of the second accused to change his car, and demanded the acquittal of his client because the papers were devoid of evidence.

The operative part of the Misdemeanors Appeals Court stated, “It is decided that criminal judgments are based on certainty and not on conjecture and guesswork, and for the moral element in crimes to be established, the accused must deliberately make the wrong statement with his knowledge of that.”

And she added, "The court, after examining the case and taking note of its circumstances and the evidence, suggests that the second accused did not pay attention to the type of car that committed the accident due to his confusion and preoccupation with the damage that happened to the car he rented, especially since the recipient of the communication in the operating room decided that communication with the second accused was about Through the phone of the perpetrator of the accident, with which the papers became devoid of evidence of criminal intent against the second accused, which requires the judiciary to acquit him of the accusation against him, and accordingly the court decides to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter to cancel it and judge the innocence of the accused of what was attributed to him.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news