The Federal Supreme Court considered 3 cases

The acquittal of an accused of adultery with a woman of multiple relationships

The court emphasized the need for peremptory conviction in criminal judgments.

archival

Finally, the Federal Supreme Court examined three cases. In the first, the accused acquitted an accused of adultery with a woman of multiple relationships. In the second, it confirmed a legal and legal principle, which states that the limit for drinking alcohol is not imposed on a non-Muslim. foreign.

In the details of the first case, the court overturned a ruling ordering the imprisonment and deportation of a defendant in a case of adultery with a woman of multiple relationships, as there was no legal or technical evidence of his perpetration of this incident, and that the judgment issued against him was based on suspicion and suspicion.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s appeal, stressing that criminal judgments issued for conviction must have a correct and peremptory conviction that the court condemned the convict, and that the case’s papers show their availability of definitive arguments, indicating certainty and certainty, without being felt. Possibility, or questioning the validity of the evidence, or inconsistency, or contradiction in the supporting evidence.

It is legally decided that the evidence for proving the crime of adultery is the explicit and sound confession without compulsion or coercion, or four male witnesses, who testify to the incident of adultery, and if none of these evidence is available, the punishment for adultery is dropped, indicating that her accusation of the first accused of committing the crime of adultery with her came in words. It was sent, and he lacks legal evidence to prove it, from the confession or testimony of four male witnesses, and that the rupture of her hymen with the multiplicity of her relations cannot be certain that the accused was the one who did this.

In the second case, the Court of Appeal decided to apply the hadd punishment to an accused of drinking alcohol, on the basis that he was a sane adult Muslim, drinking alcohol without a legal necessity that would allow him to do so. Amending the registration and description, and punishing him in accordance with Article 313 bis of the Penal Code, and the provisions of Islamic Sharia shall not apply to him.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, but confirmed that it should have been prevented and punished with intimidation.

In the third case, the Public Prosecution referred two defendants to criminal trial, as they were sane, selected, unprotected adults who had committed the crime of adultery and good sin, and urged them to leave together without a legal bond that brings them together, and the first accused, who is a foreigner, remained in the country illegally, and requested Public Prosecution punished them.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the accused be imprisoned for six months for what was attributed to him, then the Court of Appeals acquitted him of the accusation of adultery, and imprisoned him for one month on the accusation of improving the sin, so he appealed the cassation ruling, due to the lack of evidence that he was illegally free of the accused.

The court rejected his appeal, indicating that the crime of illegal seclusion against the accused is established based on the accused's confession in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, and from the statements of the first accused that she was alone with him without a legal relationship, which must be rejected.

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