debrief the thought in the Defendant’s mind, and not another. Also in the Supreme Court’s ruling in
the matter of the Government of the Sudan vs. Mohamed Rabbah Hamid and Others, Gazette 74
Page (454) “the measure of the vitality of an organ or a part of a human body, meaning its
attachment to a bodily source of life, where life is impossible without it, is a plausible measure to
for criminal intent, adding the type of instrument, force and location. A principle that was
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in
Number: MA/ASJ/1188/2018
[Handwriting: 14 - 8]
The Government of the Sudan vs. Issa Ali Ahmed, Gazette 73 Page (230), and the Government of
the Sudan vs. Kheir Es-Seed Ajab Sido, Gazette 74 Page (387). Considering such measures, we see
that the Defendant used a knife, and targeted the chest and the back of the deceased, which
penetrated to the lung and heart, the basic core of life in the body, that were ruptured. Therefore, we
concur with the Subject-Matter Court in finding the answer affirmative.
As of the arguments raised by Defense, starting by the lawful Self-Defense, it is the Defendant’s
burden to prove the elements of this argument provided in Article (16/1) of the Criminal Code of
1991 “An act is not considered a crime, if it happened while using the lawful right of Self-Defense
in a legal manner” (2) “The lawful right of Self-Defense is established if a person is facing an
undergoing or an eminent danger upon himself or, etc.,” and establishment reason are two:
That the danger is undergoing or eminent,
And that the harm is upon the self or the property, etc.,
Going back to the facts, we find no preliminary grounds to establish such a right, whereas there was
no proof that the Defendant was facing harm of danger upon herself. The deceased’s advances and
intentions towards her, as a husband, are only natural and in accordance to normal course. If
something else took place, then it might had been abnormal, but we generally find no grounds for
establishment of such a right, and the Subject-Matter Court’s decision is in accordance with the
decisions of superior courts, see the Supreme Court ruling in the Government of the Sudan vs. Attia
faraj Attia, Gazette 77 Page (208) stating: “But the proven facts in this crime did not prove that the
deceased attacked the Defendant.” Also, it’s ruling in the Government of the Sudan vs. Abbas
Abdalla Bilal, Gazette 83 Page (77) stating: “There is no lawful Self-Defense excuse in the absence
of sufficient details to prove that the Defendant was facing a grave danger.” Therefore, disregarding
the argument was correct. The Subject-Matter Court was successful in overlooking other arguments
that were not argued, and not admitted in this matter; and considered the Provocation argument,
denying the Defendant to benefit from it for the following reasons:
That the deceased’s advances and copulation with the Defendant, was the exercise of a
previously prearranged right. If there was no consent at the Defendant’s end, then it should
show before the wedding.
The Subject-Matter Court determined the availability of Court contest, for the Defendant to file
a no-consent claim.
Dismissed her testimony about others holding her for the deceased to copulate with her (And
commented that it is neither logical, nor plausible, and made a sin out of rejection.)
Number: MA/ASJ/1188/2018