The plaintiff demanded 500,000 dirhams in compensation

The innocence of a man from assaulting his partner and injuring her in the hand

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance acquitted an accused of assaulting his partner in a commercial license, and wounding her in the hand, following a dispute between them, due to the defendant meeting with company employees without the plaintiff's knowledge.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, in which she demanded to compel her partner in the commercial license to pay her a financial compensation of 500,000 dirhams, for assaulting her, by closing the door of the company’s meeting room on her hand, which caused her severe injuries.

During the consideration of the case, the defendant denied before the court the accusation against him, while the defense of the defendant, lawyer Rabia Abdel Rahman, indicated that the papers were devoid of conclusive evidence or a witness who had seen the accused harming the complainant's body, explaining that the statements of employees in the company had met. However, the accused did not assault the complainant, and that she was the one who was screaming and threatening the employees that she would terminate their services.

She attributed the plaintiff's claim against her client to a dispute between them, as a result of the first attempt to cancel a meeting held by the defendant (her partner), to get acquainted with the observations of his workers and their complaints about the work mechanism in the company that the plaintiff oversees its operation, and that she tried to end that meeting that took place without inviting her to it, By all available methods, which included screaming, threatening employees to end their services, calling the police, alleging that her partner grabbed her by the hand, and assaulted her.

Lawyer Rabia Abdel Rahman confirmed that there are differences between the plaintiff and the defendant, due to the partnership relationship between them in the trade license, which indicates that the complaint is malicious, and she fabricated that story in order to attach that accusation to her client in order to harm him, pointing out that the surveillance cameras proved that she was not exposed to any Injuries to her hand, and that she was pushing the doors with her hands, which shows that she was not complaining of any injuries.

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling that the text of Article 38 of the Penal Code indicated that the error is available if the criminal result occurs due to the perpetrator’s fault, whether this error was negligence, lack of attention, carelessness, recklessness, recklessness, non-observance of laws or regulations or systems or commands.

She pointed out that the judgment of conviction must be based on certainty, and that doubt is explained in favor of the accused, and since there is no conclusive evidence in the case papers indicating the accused's mistake in injuring the complainant, and the court may indicate that it has concluded in its judgment in the manner presented above. It was not proven that the accused had committed the crime charged against him, and the court ruled that the accused had been acquitted of the charge against him.

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