The Legal Department pointed out to the accused through three (03) diagnostic tables, that there is no evidence reported of the insults she accused the victim of uttering against her; that the victim, on seeing the accused and the witness talking about him, certainly came to defend his honour; Finally, not only does the diagnosis made in the medical certificate prove the contrary of what the accused declared to have struck a single blow, but also after the acts, the accused left the premises even though she could have come to his aid by evacuating him to the hospital; that this behaviour indicates that she could have been prosecuted for attempted murder or failure to assist a person in danger; Barrister OUATTARA Issiaka in response to the Legal Department's observations pleaded that her client administered only one blow to the victim, which caused him to faint, that her client remained there until the victim was revived and transferred to hospital; that she even paid for the victim's medical expenses; that finally, her client regretted her act; that she declared that her intention was rather aimed at correcting the victim's attitude than the injury that ensued; that consequently her client acknowledged the acts and apologized, that it would be appropriate for Mr. President to apply the law benevolently, to allow the civil claims and to deduct from them the medical expenses already incurred by her client up to the sum of CFAF 32,820 (thirty-two thousand eight hundred and twenty); K.A, the victim, in the case at hand, stated that he was on his way to his mother’s business, when he saw both the accused and the witness S. Joachim discussing; that he approached them and told the witness in essence: "not to listen to the accused, because she is lying"; that he was joking with his parents; that this prompted the accused' daughters to accuse him of having insulted them; K.W.A, plaintiff, stated before the court that when the accused arrived at her home, she began to insult her because her child had insulted her; that she asked the child if he had insulted her, but he denied the facts; that she and the accused had problems, that she believes it was because of these past events, that she had come to provoke her by accusing her child of having insulted her; that the accused gave the child two blows and even trampled him on the chest; that she was at her business place during the events; that it was a lady who came to inform her that the accused had hit her child and that he had fainted; that she is a civil party and is claiming the expenses she incurred for the medical care of her child; S. Joachim, a witness called to the stand, stated that the accused came to his home to explain to him the victim's attitude towards her; that while they were discussing, the victim who was passing through told him not to listen to the accused; that he did not insult her but rather joked with his parents; that the accused tried to hit him, but he intervened; that the accused took advantage of his inattention to hit the victim on the forehead, causing him to faint; that he revived him before leaving the scene; that the accused remained on the scene until the victim woke up; On this, the hearing ended; the Court reserved the case for judgement to be handed down the same day, and ruled as follows: