verifying the validity of the texts properly under the provisions of article 188, penal
procedures of 1991.
The applicant raised the following reasons:

The Court of Appeal supported the conviction but adjusted the punishment.
The accused attacked the complainant by beatings and tore his clothes and robbed his
cell phone and the phone of the first plaintiff witness. The accused confessed with the
entire crime.
3. There is no basis for commutation.
4. It is required to cancel the appeal judgment regarding the punishment and restore the
judgment of the trial court.
On 18/1/2015, Mr. Abdul Wahab Mohammed Al-Hassan Idris requested a criminal check
on behalf of the convicts which lead later to ask for the cancellation of conviction and
punishment because it is unfounded and in reserve for mitigating the punishment for the
conditions of the convicted.
Since the request is originally a request for examination, so we will intervene through
article 188 criminal proceedings of 1991 to fully ascertain the validity and application of
the texts properly.

On 31/12/2014, the complainant knew the final judgment and on 7/1/2014 he
submitted his request during the time enrollment M 184 criminal proceedings of
1991, so it is acceptable in form and it is no problem to intervene under the
examination factor as mentioned above.

The defense request included:
1. There is a serious doubt in the plaintiff lawsuit. His Highness referred that what he
proved considers the book of ‘Ibn Kadamh Lelmoghanna” – tenth section- paragraph
842, p 167-169 (it is not allowed to accept a witness of an adversary, or a person
allowing or defending himself).
2. The registration of the judicial admission collectively contradicts with article 21 Proof
of 1991 and article 50 Criminal Procedures of 1991.
3. If the Court of Appeal doesn’t attribute actions and the role of each accused.
4. The things occurred in the crime scene is a normal thing in this society when a group
of youth surprised a man and a woman in these conditions.
5. This article focuses on the validity or non-validity of the proof stated against the
The summary of these facts:
On 27/09/2014 at around 10 at night, the citizen/ Kabashi Ahmed Mohammed reported that
his car- during his movement from Al Jalabiya area to El-Obeid city- broke off in the way,
and he was accompanied by the first plaintiff witness/ Khadija Sulaiman Ebrahim, at their
arrival the bay between El-Obeid and the space, they were faced by the six convicted who
terrified them and could take their mobiles and a cash amount, and also tried to rap the

By reviewing the initial proceeding and the judgment of the Appeal Circuit and the
submitted requests.
The attack is proven from the accused on the two victims, and there was a violence
based on the clothes that become torn by the accused.

Select target paragraph3