Cassations Nos

(1-3) Gaining an understanding of the reality in the case. Premeditated murder. Mens rea. Islamic Sharia. Ruling “Violating Islamic Sharia” “Error in the Application of the Law.” Reversal based on “Valid Grounds”.

1- The trial court is empowered to comprehend the reality in the case, assess its evidence, and infer the correct picture of the case’s facts. This authority lies within its jurisdiction, provided the conclusions drawn are valid.

2- In accordance with the Maliki doctrine, premeditated murder is materialised when the action causing death is carried out deliberately as an act of aggression. The doctrine disregards the perpetrator's intentions or the specific instrument utilised in the act of killing.

3- The contested ruling, which nullified the appealed ruling imposing the death penalty on the appellant and instead sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment for the charge of assault leading to death, along with the requirement to pay legal blood money totaling two hundred thousand dirhams and deportation after completing the sentence, despite acknowledging in its rationale that the appellant assaulted the victim using a sharp implement (cleaver). This ruling is deemed an error in the application of noble Islamic Sharia and the law, characterised by inference flaws and reasoning deficiencies, necessitating its reversal.

1- It is prescribed that the trial court possesses the authority to base its judgment on the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented during the trial for research and investigation and to infer the correct picture of the facts of the case. However, this authority is not absolute; it is contingent upon valid and admissible evidence contained within the case documents. It is also established that the court is solely responsible for assessing the evidence, provided that such assessment is grounded in a logical and reasonable interpretation. If the assessment is found to be unsound, contradictory to documented facts, or lacking in logic, the resulting judgment shall be subject to review by the Court of Cassation. This review serves to highlight the objections raised against the initial ruling.

2- Furthermore, according to the present Maliki doctrine in the State, deliberate killing is construed from the demonstration of intent and the resulting consequence. Any deliberate act of aggression resulting in the death of the victim constitutes premeditated killing, necessitating punitive measures and retribution. The specific intention of the assailant to cause the victim's death is inconsequential as long as the death was not accidental or committed in jest. Additionally, the specific instrument used in the act of killing holds no significance, irrespective of whether it is typically considered lethal. Whether the perpetrator, deliberately engaging in aggressive behaviour, employs a knife, sword, firearm, strangulation, or even an object such as a blow, punch, or rod that results in the death of the victim, it is considered premeditated murder. The prescribed penalty is retribution, unless the payment of blood money is waived by the avenger of blood, as clarified in Al-Zarqani's Explanation on the Summary of Sidi Khalil, vol. 8, p. 7: “If the assailant has the deliberate intention to strike, even with a non-lethal object like a rod, and does so out of anger or enmity, he shall be punished”. Ibn Jazi's assertions in the Book of Jurisprudential Laws, pp. 339, 340, further underscore: “Regarding intentionality, if the murderer intends to kill by striking with a sharp or heavy object, or by burning, drowning, strangulation, poisoning, or any other means, he shall be subject to punishment”. In accordance with the tenets of the Maliki doctrine, intentionally causing death using any instrument, regardless of its nature, warrants retribution. In this context, all three schools of thought unanimously agree on the necessity of retribution when deliberate killing is carried out with an instrument capable of causing death, given the fulfillment of other conditions.

Given the prevailing circumstances and whereas the substantiated evidence from case documents and witness testimonies, it has been established that the accused was observed at the scene of the incident brandishing a sizable knife (a cleaver). He appeared agitated and was seen chasing the victim. The statements provided by other witnesses confirmed observing the accused pursuing the victim and inflicting stab wounds on the victim's hand and head. This conclusion is based on the content of the police inquiries and the forensic medical report, which verified that the victim's fatal injuries resulted from being struck by a sharp and heavy object, like a large knife (a cleaver) or a similar implement, specifically on the head and right hand. This caused severe bleeding due to the laceration of arteries and veins in the hand. These details constituted the evidence presented to the court, explicitly outlined in its rationale, which mandated due consideration when delivering the verdict.

3- In light of the circumstances, and whereas the contested ruling cancelled the appealed ruling ordering the death penalty for the appellant and sentencing him again to ten years’ imprisonment for the charge of assault leading to unintentional death that the court imposed on the incident, with the imposition upon him to pay the legal blood money amounting to two hundred thousand dirhams and deportation after serving the sentence. Notwithstanding, it was explicitly stated in the court's rationale that the appellant’s assault on the victim with a sharp object (a cleaver) was directed at the victim's hand and head, which resulted in the victim’s demise, as indicated by the forensic consultant’s report. This assertion contradicts the principles of Islamic Sharia law, particularly those of the Maliki doctrine. Hence, the contested ruling is considered as having erred in the application of the provisions of the noble Islamic Sharia and as having contained flaws in inference, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

The court,

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and the remaining documents, the Public Prosecution accused the appellant of having on 4/6/2019 and on a prior date, in the Department of the Emirate of ........:

1- deliberately and aggressively killed the victim/ “unidentified” by inflicting multiple stab wounds to the right hand and forehead, with the intent to cause fatal harm, resulting in injuries as specified in the autopsy report, ultimately leading to the victim's demise, as expounded in the investigations.

2- being a foreign national, unlawfully remained in the country beyond the expiration of the visa granted to him without renewing it or exiting the country, and additionally declined to pay the stipulated fine, as detailed in the investigations.

The Public Prosecution sought punishment for the appellant in accordance with the provisions of Islamic Sharia and Articles 121/1 and 274/1 of the Federal Penal Code, alongside Articles 1, 21/1-3 of Federal Law No. 6 of 1973 governing the entry and residence of foreigners and its subsequent amendments.

At the session dated 29/12/2020, the Federal Criminal Court unanimously ruled to punish the accused with the following:

1- Retaliatory death as a consequence of the intentional and aggressive killing of the victim, carried out with premeditation and deliberation. The means available to the state are to be employed for the execution of retaliation for the first charge.

2- A three-month imprisonment term for the second charge of unlawfully remaining in the country, followed by deportation upon completion of the sentence.

Both the convict and the Public Prosecution disagreed with this judgment and filed an appeal against it. Subsequently, during the session held on 31/10/2021, the Ajman Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to cancel the contested appealed and convict the accused with a ten-year prison sentence for a new charge stemming from the incident. Additionally, the court mandated the payment of legal blood money amounting to two hundred thousand dirhams to be disbursed to the deceased's heirs. The court also ruled deportation of the accused upon completion of the prison term and imposed on him the payment of the judicial fees for the courts of first instance and appeal.

Both the convict and the Public Prosecution dissented with this ruling and subsequently filed two present appeals in cassation.

First - Appeal in Cassation No. 1208 of 2021: Filed by the Public Prosecution:

Whereas, the Public Prosecution objects to the contested ruling asserting the single ground that it erred in application of the noble Islamic Sharia, erred in application of the law, contained deficiencies in reasoning and flaws in inference, as it annulled the appealed judgment, substituting the death penalty for the appellant with a ten-year prison sentence for an offence leading to unintentional death and imposed upon him to pay the legal blood money of two hundred thousand dirhams. The Public Prosecution contends that the elements of premeditated murder, which require retaliation, were present, as the victim's death resulted from a forceful strike with a large knife (cleaver) to their head and hand in an aggressive manner. According to the Maliki doctrine applied in the state, if an assailant intends the attack without specifically intending the death, and the action results in the victim's death, it is regarded as intentional. As the ruling contradicted this understanding, it violated Sharia provisions, which renders it defective and necessitates its reversal.

Whereas the objection holds merits, since It is prescribed that the trial court possesses the authority to base its judgment on the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented during the trial for research and investigation and to infer the correct picture of the facts of the case. However, this authority is not absolute; it is contingent upon valid and admissible evidence contained within the case documents.

It is also established that the court is solely responsible for assessing the evidence, provided that such assessment is grounded in a logical and reasonable interpretation. If the assessment is found to be unsound, contradictory to documented facts, or lacking in logic, the resulting judgment shall be subject to review by the Court of Cassation. This review serves to highlight the objections raised against the initial ruling.

Furthermore, according to the present Maliki doctrine in the State, deliberate killing is construed from the demonstration of intent and the resulting consequence. Any deliberate act of aggression resulting in the death of the victim constitutes premeditated killing, necessitating punitive measures and retribution. The specific intention of the assailant to cause the victim's death is inconsequential as long as the death was not accidental or committed in jest. Additionally, the specific instrument used in the act of killing holds no significance, irrespective of whether it is typically considered lethal.

Whether the perpetrator, deliberately engaging in aggressive behaviour, employs a knife, sword, firearm, strangulation, or even an object such as a blow, punch, or rod that results in the death of the victim, it is considered premeditated murder. The prescribed penalty is retribution, unless the payment of blood money is waived by the avenger of blood, as clarified in Al-Zarqani's Explanation on the Summary of Sidi Khalil, vol. 8, p. 7: “If the assailant has the deliberate intention to strike, even with a non-lethal object like a rod, and does so out of anger or enmity, he shall be punished”. Ibn Jazi's assertions in the Book of Jurisprudential Laws, pp. 339, 340, further underscore: “Regarding intentionality, if the murderer intends to kill by striking with a sharp or heavy object, or by burning, drowning, strangulation, poisoning, or any other means, he shall be subject to punishment”.

In accordance with the tenets of the Maliki doctrine, intentionally causing death using any instrument, regardless of its nature, warrants retribution. In this context, all three schools of thought unanimously agree on the necessity of retaliation when deliberate killing is carried out with an instrument capable of causing death, given the fulfilment of other conditions.

Given the prevailing circumstances and whereas the substantiated evidence from case documents and witness testimonies, it has been established that the accused was observed at the scene of the incident brandishing a sizable knife (a cleaver). He appeared agitated and was seen chasing the victim. The statements provided by other witnesses confirmed observing the accused pursuing the victim and inflicting stab wounds on the victim's hand and head. This conclusion is based on the content of the police inquiries and the forensic medical report, which verified that the victim's fatal injuries resulted from being struck by a sharp and heavy object, like a large knife (a cleaver) or a similar implement, specifically on the head and right hand. This caused severe bleeding due to the laceration of arteries and veins in the hand. These details constituted the evidence presented to the court, explicitly outlined in its rationale, which mandated due consideration when delivering the verdict.

light of the circumstances, and whereas the contested ruling cancelled the appealed ruling ordering the death penalty for the appellant and sentencing him again to ten years’ imprisonment for the charge of assault leading to unintentional death that the court imposed on the incident, with the imposition upon him to pay the legal blood money amounting to two hundred thousand dirhams and deportation after serving the sentence. Notwithstanding, it was explicitly stated in the court's rationale that the appellant’s assault on the victim with a sharp object (a cleaver) was directed at the victim's hand and head, which resulted in the victim’s demise, as indicated by the forensic consultant’s report. This assertion contradicts the principles of Islamic Sharia law, particularly those of the Maliki doctrine. Hence, the contested ruling is considered as having erred in the application of the provisions of the noble Islamic Sharia and as having contained flaws in inference, and consequently, it shall be reversed and remanded.

Second - Appeal in Cassation No. 1360 of 2021 filed by .......:

Whereas this appeal in cassation was lodged against the contested ruling, and the court previously reversed it in Appeal No. 1208 of 2021 filed by the Public Prosecution, the present appeal in cassation is connected to that prior appeal due to the shared subject matter and the identical ruling passed against the appellant. As a result of this correlation, the ruling pronounced in that cassation holds as a decision in the current cassation, rendering the examination of its grounds unnecessary.