The Supreme Court
GREATER DARFUR STATES CIRCUIT
Before Their Excellency:
Gasim Hamid Gasim
Yagoub Osman Begaira
Hashim Ibrahim Altom
Trail of Noor Aldeen Abdallah Ali
No / m. ein / t. j /55/2018
This was an application of Objection raised by Advocate Abdel Raheem Mohammed Tibin, on behalf
of the applicant, against East Darfur Court of Appeal, Aldaien, in which a decision was expressed in
the Appeal memo No /a. c. j / 449/ 2017. The aforesaid decision ruled the upholding of the conviction
of the applicant, concurred to the court of First Instance decision. The advocate, objected to the
decision stating the reasons to be , the decision contravention of the law declaring, that the decision
was not right as the prosecutor proved by sufficient medical evidence that the victim was underage
and is in the status of childhood became pregnant as a result of the accused act . The prosecutor
submitted a birth certificate stating the date of birth of the victim to be 17/7/2000. The prosecutor
witness proved that the accused and the victim were together at 10 o’clock at night, in the bed, and
saw the victim’s underwear on the bed. He also saw the accused lifting up part of his dressing,
disclosing his sexual organs. The accused confessed to these facts that he and the victim were alone.
Furthermore the existence of the victim and accused, alone together was without legal ties or cause.
As per the birth and the medical evidence, the victim is Juvenile. The accused exploited this fact to
commit sexual intercourse with the victim. His presence with the victim in the described condition
shall amount to sexual harassment.
The advocate summed up his memo requesting a declaration of a new rule convicting the accused
under section4 5/ein j of the Juvenile Act 2010.
As a matter of form we accept the application under S 188 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 for
the purpose of examining the adequacy and correctness of the proceeding and decision to achieve
ultimate end of justice.
Upon perusing all papers, the application and the reasoning stated the low grade courts decisions
subject to the fact triggering the criminal suit, against the accused Noor Alaien Abdallah, before the
Police of Protection of Juvenile and families, to the effect that the accused and victim were alone in
house for two hours and in fact the accused had sexually abused the victim.
The legal proceeding regarding the suit was taken by the police and upon the completion of the police
investigation, the paper were referred to the court, ending by the court passing the decision the subject
matter of this application which was then approved by the court of appeal .
We disagree with decision of low courts for the following:However:
1-section 4 of The Children’s Act 2010 is clear and explicit in its categorical definition of the child,
who is not yet an adult.
The criminal law in determining, by section 3, the age of maturity is not a Shariah norm; it was a
juristic choice that can only be resorted to in the case of absence of an express legislative provision to
the contrary in the special law governing the issue in question. Never the less, Section 4 of the
Childrens Act 2010 is not in contravention to the constitution or to Islamic Shaikh in