The Legal Department pointed out to the accused through three (03)
diagnostic tables, that there is no evidence reported of the insults she
accused the victim of uttering against her; that the victim, on seeing
the accused and the witness talking about him, certainly came to
defend his honour; Finally, not only does the diagnosis made in the
medical certificate prove the contrary of what the accused declared to
have struck a single blow, but also after the acts, the accused left the
premises even though she could have come to his aid by evacuating
him to the hospital; that this behaviour indicates that she could have
been prosecuted for attempted murder or failure to assist a person in
danger;
Barrister OUATTARA Issiaka in response to the Legal Department's
observations pleaded that her client administered only one blow to the
victim, which caused him to faint, that her client remained there until
the victim was revived and transferred to hospital; that she even paid
for the victim's medical expenses; that finally, her client regretted her
act; that she declared that her intention was rather aimed at correcting
the victim's attitude than the injury that ensued; that consequently her
client acknowledged the acts and apologized, that it would be
appropriate for Mr. President to apply the law benevolently, to allow the
civil claims and to deduct from them the medical expenses already
incurred by her client up to the sum of CFAF 32,820 (thirty-two
thousand eight hundred and twenty);
K.A, the victim, in the case at hand, stated that he was on his way to
his mother’s business, when he saw both the accused and the witness
S. Joachim discussing; that he approached them and told the witness
in essence: "not to listen to the accused, because she is lying"; that he
was joking with his parents; that this prompted the accused' daughters
to accuse him of having insulted them;
K.W.A, plaintiff, stated before the court that when the accused
arrived at her home, she began to insult her because her child had
insulted her; that she asked the child if he had insulted her, but he
denied the facts; that she and the accused had problems, that she
believes it was because of these past events, that she had come to
provoke her by accusing her child of having insulted her; that the
accused gave the child two blows and even trampled him on the
chest; that she was at her business place during the events; that it
was a lady who came to inform her that the accused had hit her child
and that he had fainted; that she is a civil party and is claiming the
expenses she incurred for the medical care of her child;
S. Joachim, a witness called to the stand, stated that the accused came
to his home to explain to him the victim's attitude towards her; that
while they were discussing, the victim who was passing through told
him not to listen to the accused; that he did not insult her but rather
joked with his parents; that the accused tried to hit him, but he
intervened; that the accused took advantage of his inattention to hit the
victim on the forehead, causing him to faint; that he revived him before
leaving the scene; that the accused remained on the scene until the
victim woke up;
On this, the hearing ended; the Court reserved the case for judgement
to be handed down the same day, and ruled as follows: