A husband filed a complaint against his wife under one of the district conditions alleging her betrayal, providing evidence in support of his allegations, and after this was proved and the wife admitted to treason, the case was referred to the Criminal Court, where the case manager issued a preliminary verdict of conviction of the defendant and imprisoned her for 6 months.
After considering the case, the judges of the court of Appeal issued their verdict of reversal of the verdict issued by the court of First Instance, ruling again that the wife’s guilt was not proven, and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and she was released from it.the need for their reasoning for the verdict is as follows: because the testimony of the two witnesses does not mention acts or statements that can be inferred from the existence of a forbidden relationship, and the woman riding with the man or meeting him is not evidence of the existence of a forbidden relationship between them, and because the original is not guilty, the chamber concludes to overturn the verdict and dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
Details of the lawsuit
The husband submitted evidence of his wife’s infidelity to the police and after completing the inference procedures with the competent authorities, the complaint was referred to the public prosecution for the necessary procedure, and after the investigations ended with charging the wife for admitting her communication with a foreign person and her appointment for him to transfer the case papers to the Criminal Court for consideration of sentencing, where the prosecutor submitted his statement in the lawsuit, which is what the results of the investigation concluded with the public prosecution with the wife’s confession of her cheating on her husband before the competent authorities, two witnesses were brought by the prosecutor as evidence of his claim, one was working as a driver for the defendant, the other as a neighbor for her, two witnesses were brought by the prosecutor as evidence of his claim, one was working as a driver for the defendant, the other as a neighbor for her, The their testimony was limited to their vision of the defendant After several court sessions, the judge issued a verdict convicting the defendant of having established a relationship that is forbidden by Shari’a, causing him to rule that there is conclusive evidence proving that the defendant established the relationship that is forbidden by Shari’a.
For his part, the judge of the case issued a preliminary verdict of conviction of the defendant, and decided in the public right to imprison the defendant for two months, including what she spent in custody on this case, and decided in the private right to imprison the defendant for 4 months after the end of her sentence in the public right.
Appeal overturns the verdict
The convict filed an objection against the preliminary verdict, and demanded the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and her release from it, because the descriptions of the crime were not accurately described to identify its elements, and that the testimony of witnesses was not included in the case, and thus the verdict was appealed again that the wife’s guilt was not proven, and the plaintiff’s claim was returned and she was released from it.
Assertiveness and certainty
Legal consultant Inas Al-Shehri explained that one of the rules and principles on which the criminal judiciary has settled is that criminal sentences should be based on certainty and certainty, not on suspicion and probability, and that conviction is based only on conclusive arguments that benefit certainty and certainty, and because the judiciary believes that the Shari’a does not seek to convict and punish people, but rather tends to the way to achieve this is the directives of the legislative authority not to expand criminalization or deliberately confiscate or restrict the right or freedom without justification or conclusive evidence Prove it.
Jeddah: Najla Al-Harbi – Origin