As for the punishment, if this court could intervene, it would have. It was incumbent to consider the victim
as the assailant’s (Mahram), and the assailant’s act was an attempt to commit incest under Article 150 of
1992, a circumstance that should call for severer punishment, and calls on the court to hand down the
maximum punishment. But, as the punishment is discretional of the Court of First Instance, this court
should not interfere with it unless it was in violation of the law which is not present in this case.
Therefore, I decide that we settle for not interfering. And, if my colleagues in the venue should agree with
me, we decide:
1-upholding the whole of the ruling.
2-all parties be notified of the ruling
Dalya Basheer Siraj
Supreme Court Justice.
22/1/2017
Second opinion: Agree
Adam Ismail Adam
Supreme Court Justice
22/1/2017
Third opinion; agree
Ali Alshareef Dowalbeit
Supreme Court Justice
23/1/2017
Conclusive opinion;
1- Upholding the ruling.
2- All parties be informed of the ruling.
Ali Alshareef Dowalbeit
Head of the Criminal Circuit/ Supreme Court
Greater Kordofan States.
4