At the end of the investigation, the above-mentioned Police station drafted a report relating thereto and transmitted the case file to the State Counsel of Faso who prosecuted S.A.A in a flagrante delicto proceeding, for facts of theft, invasion of residence, destruction of property and domestic violence on fifteen January two thousand and twenty (15/01/2020); Before the State Counsel of Faso, the accused admitted the facts of which he was accused, except the charge of theft; At Court, he denied the allegations of theft, but admitted those of invasion of residence, intentional destruction of property and domestic violence, then pleaded the clemency of the Court; B.B and B.O declared that they were not filing a civil claim; After having summarised the facts, the Legal Department requested that the accused be discharged of the count of theft on the benefit of doubt, but he should be punished for the charges of invasion of residence, intentional destruction of property, domestic violence and sentence him to a non-suspended six (6) months imprisonment term and a fine of CFAF 250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand). Taking the floor in last position, the accused pleaded for the Court’s clemency. At the end of the proceedings, the Court adjourned the case for judgement on 19 February 2020; On that date, the Court proceeded to determine the case by delivering the following judgement: II- PROCEDURE A- PROSECUTION 1- GUILT OF THE ACCUSED a)-Act of theft Whereas the accused, SAWADOGO Abdoul Aziz is prosecuted for the theft of a sum of CFAF 47,000 (forty-seven thousand) which was kept in a coffer belonging to B.B; Whereas according to Article 611-1 of the Penal Code, whoever fraudulently takes another person’s property shall be guilty of theft; that it emerges from this provision that an offence is constituted when there is the physical act of taking property belonging to another person, and a criminal intent; Whereas upon examination of the file, none of the ingredients of the offence of theft was established with certainty against the accused, S.A.A ; that the fact that the theft took place in the latter’s house cannot constitute sufficient charges and therefore characterize the offence; given that the accused was not found in possession of the said sum of money; that considering this, there was still doubt as to whether he was guilty of the acts he was accused of; that he should be discharged by reason of the benefit of this doubt; b) Act of invasion of residence Whereas S.A.A is prosecuted for invasion of residence; Whereas that according to Article 523-6 of the Penal Code, whoever enters or tries to enter another person’s residence by means of fraud, threats or violence against persons or property shall be guilty of invasion of residence; that within the meaning of this article, it is the illegal entry into another person’s residence without their consent which is criminalized;