an unrecognized rape since committed by the husband. Therefore, the defense requests intervention to revise the description of the conviction into the description of the action. The Court of the Subject-Matter issued the ruling above, after deliberating the facts presented, and concluded a preliminary conviction through a viable process of conclusion under Article (130/1) of the Criminal Code of 1991 and deliberated and dismissed the permissible and constrictive causes of criminal responsibility. Then deliberated the defense provided in Article (131) of the same law, which did not benefit the defendant by any means. Afterwards, it issued the contested ruling at hand. First: The motions were filed within their time limits, by recognizable parties of the matter, therefore, and since they met the conditions in Articles (183 - 184) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991, we find them formally admissible. Second: In the matter, we agree with the Subject-Matter Court’s inclination about the defendant’s commission of a criminal act under Article (130/1) of the Criminal Code of 1991, and that is for the following reasons: Number: MA/ASJ/1188/2018 [Handwriting: 14 - 7] Firstly: the murder crime should be committed against a living human as provided in Article (132) of the Criminal Code of 1991 (Murder is causing of death to a living human in premeditated manner, semi-premeditated manner, or wrongfully.) and it was proved in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, that the deceased was with them and alive in the morning of the crime. The defendant confirmed that at all stages. Therefore, we find that fact affirmative. Secondly: did the defendant stab the deceased? We affirmatively answer that as well, since the defendant, who should’ve been on a honeymoon with her groom, came alone to her parents’ house at Al Bageir, eight days after her wedding, carrying a knife (The Exhibit) and told them that she stabbed her husband, and locked the apartment. After they heard her story, they turned her in to the police. The deceased family was contacted, who then went to the apartment before the police. The apartment door was broken, and the deceased was found dead on the room’s floor covered with blood. The defendant admitted and recorded her statement that she did not retract at any stage later. An autopsy was performed on the deceased’s corpse, and a report was generated as a prosecution document that proofed the stabs on the deceased’s body. The knife was examined as well, by the forensic laboratories and a statement in prosecution document (6) verified a trace of human blood that matches the deceased’s blood. Therefore, we answer affirmatively. Did the stabs cause the death of the deceased? We effortlessly agree with the Court on this question. Since the defendant admitted to inflicting the stabs described in prosecution document (6), and since it was proofed that the cause of death was a penetrating stab wound, lung rupture and hemorrhage caused by a sharp blade (Dr. Jamal Yousif) a document that attributes death only to sharp blade stabs, and was not refuted. Therefore, we find the answer affirmative. As for the intent, which the Court found conspicuously, is a moral concept that is debriefed from utterances and actions accompanying the act, a principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Government of the Sudan vs. Muga Kujoor, Gazette 73 Page (330) with a subjective measure to