Veto: Testimony of witnesses if they disagree should be mentioned in full in the ruling otherwise it became invalid
The Court of Cassation affirmed an important legal principle relating to the court's mention of witness testimony in its judgment, noting that in the event that testimony of witnesses is repeated in one case, all of which are in the same sense, it is fine to judge if a witness's testimony is transmitted in a statement The other is to avoid repetition, but if there is disagreement in the statements of witnesses about the same incident or if each of them has witnessed a fact other than that witnessed by others, the testimony of each witness must be mentioned separately for the safety of the ruling.
During its consideration, the Court said the appeal No. 31285 for the year 85/2018/01/01
"Since the Court of Cassation has ruled that each sentence of conviction must indicate the content of each evidence of the evidence that was erected on it and recalls its purpose until the face of its reasoning and peace is clear, so as to enable the Court of Cassation to monitor the application of the law correctly on the incident The ruling was otherwise invalid. "
The court continued that if the testimony of witnesses is focused on one incident and there is no dispute regarding that incident, it is fine to judge if a testimony of a witness is referred to the testimony of another witness in order to avoid repetition. Each of whom had witnessed an incident other than that witnessed by others, the integrity of the judgment must condemn the testimony of each individual witness.
The court went on to say: "As it was, and it was shown from the knowledge of the vocabulary that the witnesses …., …., … stated in the investigations of the Public Prosecution that they did not witness the incident of the accused firing the fiery bullet at the victim, Witnessed by the witness …. in the substantive part – which was the subject of the reasoning of the judgment of their testimony – and then, when he transmitted in a statement what he witnessed both …. and …. and …. to the content of what he witnessed … with the difference of the incident that they witnessed, there is a lack of governance, and a mistake in attribution, which invalidates and requires the veto rule and return.
– The testimony of the witnesses
Post a Comment