In the name of God the Merciful National Supreme Court State Department of Greater Darfur Criminal Chamber In front of : Mr. Hassan Abdelkrim Othman President Mr. Hashem Ibrahim A-Tom Member Mr. Dr. Sulaiman Mohammad Shaib Member Number: M A / T G / 49/2018 Trial Haitham Mohammad Sharaf al-Din Judgment The counsel for the appellant, Muhammad Ali Abdurrahman, filed an appeal against the decision of the State Court of Appeals of the State of East Darfur, in accordance to his memorandum No. ASG / 410/2017 supporting the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissing the appeal. The counsel argued that the decisions of the lower courts were unlawful, as the trial court violated section 30 of the 1994 Evidence Act by refusing to seek technical advice and opinions from the courts experts, by refusing the prosecution's application in connection with the genetic DNA test. The court does not assist the litigants against themselves and presenting the evidence at the trial stage is not correct. Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1991 provides: "The court may, alone or at the request of the accused or the defense, at any time before the verdict ..." The exploitation of the trial court by force of evidence does not mean that there is arbitrariness and tyranny of the decision. For other reasons relating to the weight and adaptation of the evidence, he requested at the end of his memorandum to set aside the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, as well as to return the evidence. The court of First Instance, and the court of appeal, returned the papers and accepted the application and heard further evidence. The appeal was filed on January 30, 2018 with a receipt of a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal, according to the attached affidavit, in January 18, 2018; therefore, the request was registered within the deadlines provided for, in article 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1991. After examining all the documents, the facts contained the actions of the applicant in pursuing the criminal case against the accused, in which it stated that he had raped his daughter before the office of the family and children Da’in