The Court of Appeal of Umdurman and on the judgment No. A.S.J/1065/2017 ruled to uphold the conviction and the penalty and ordered the papers to be submitted to the National Supreme Court which in turn ruled on the face of reviewing the request to support the confection with amendments and rejected the penalty in the manner mentioned on the preamble of this memorandum. The request mentioned on the memorandum to review was based on failure to notify the convicted or his lawyer of the decision of the appeal caused the accused to miss a legal stage of the litigation. And the documents were forwarded directly to the Supreme Court. The supreme court examined the papers without verifying the declaration of the appellant or his lawyer and that the decision has erred in not granting the accused his right of defense or his lawyer and that the court had erred in not discussing the accused his absence from the time and place of the incident whereas the witnesses have confirmed and their wordings were in contradiction and misleading, the victim stated that the accused had placed here down but the persecuting witness said he dropped her, dropping something means to toss or throw violently in a manner that leads to break which was not the case, and that the persecution witness was present on all of the trials and objected to that and the court refused to accept the objection. The respondent was notified of the request but failed to respond in time. First, it should be noted that the review is an exceptional manner, based on the fact that the judgment in question - the judgment of the Supreme Court - came in direct violation of the semantic text and the attribution of the book or the Sunah’ (The doctrine, sayings and doings of Prophet Mohammed PBUH), or the blatant violation of the law to deny the ruling to the provisions of the law. After reviewing, we find that everything mentioned by the applicant is nothing more than a dispute about the evidence and analysis of the facts to be drawn in line with his point of view and his case as a representative of the defense. The witness of the first accusation confirmed his vision of the accused, carrying the girl child in his hand, and throwing her screaming to the ground, and the witness clearly believed what he saw, in addition to that the testimony of the victimized child which is an accepted proof un condemning the accused in cases of sexual crimes as long as it is supported in evidence by other direct or indirect and compelling evidence that would link the accused with the crime he so thought to deny – the eye witness who is 9 years old, is acceptable in the evidence, since the Evidence Act of 1983 did not refer to a particular age of a person as a minimum cutting age for the witness as long as he is aware of the nature of the objects and could clearly distinguish them under oath or without. In this case, the child reported that the defendant had inserted his finger in the area of chastity in her “vagina” and pointed to the place and tampered with it until it bled and removed the membrane (Bkaraha) the medical repost came in conformity and reinforced her claim, where it mentioned that the victim’s membrane had indeed been removed and there were ulcers and recent sexual abuse – these allegations tie the accused with the crime and he was identified by the first witness to be present at the scene of the crime without any doubts.