In the name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful
The Appeal Criminal Court
H. E/ Mohammed Al Mutasim Ibraheem ……………………………….. President
H. E/ Taj Alsir Said Ahmed …………………………. Member
H. E/ Mohammed Ali Al Hadi Al Jamri …………………. President
Number: M. A./ A. S. J/ 121/1996
Trial of: Jameel Riyadh and Others
On 16/1/1996 Khartoum (2) Criminal Court ruled against the accused under articles 78, 154 and 155 of
the Criminal Code. Detailing the penalty, the court’s judgment on the first accused was imprisonment
for a period of three years for violating articles 154 and 155 of the Criminal Code (the court should have
specified the penalties for each crime, and it could rule in succession of the penalty or apply the most
severe penalty if it considers it appropriate, and believed that the criminal act Is one and the same.)
The Court also passed the following judgment on the second accused: 40 lashes for violating article 78
and imprisonment for a period of two years for violating article 154; and it also passed the following
judgment on the third accused: imprisonment for a period of two years for violating article 154 also.
The details in the judgments show that the penalties are; article 78 violated by the second accused only
and not all accused, therefore, the second and third accused did not commit a crime under article 155 as
understood from the decision.
Mr. Izz Al Dean Al Tahir and Mr. Abdul Sameeh Khidhir presented an appeal to defend the accused and
both applications are accepted in form.
What is established from the statements of the witnesses is that the second and [female] third accused
are not bound with any Sharia legal matrimonial ties; and that [the second accused] arrived intoxicated
at the house of the first accused, knowing that she is single.
There is no other explanation consistent with the circumstances described other than [the intention to]
perform sex, whatever the form it took.
First: The witnesses testify that the second and third accused came at ten o’clock at night to a house
occupied by the first accused; the witnesses were watching in front of the house as she got off the car
with her head bowed in fear of being recognized. Although this statement is a hypothetical assumption,
it is a reasonable assumption.
There is no relationship between the second and the third accused, as it is clear from the differences in
their testimonies. He claims that he found her in the street, and she joined him in the car, and that they