A man was acquitted of endangering his ex-wife’s life after a verbal argument

The Al Ain Court of First Instance acquitted a man of the charge of endangering the lives of others, after his ex-wife accused him of following her vehicle and suddenly braking in front of it, while it was leaving the Roya Center for Indigents in the city of Al Ain.

A woman filed a report in which she stated that her ex-husband deliberately blocked the path of her vehicle, after dropping off one of her children at an approved vision center, and suddenly swerved in front of her and pressed hard on the brakes, which, according to her statements, put her life and the life of her companion in danger.

The complainant stated in her statements that the incident occurred following a verbal altercation, which broke out while the child was being delivered inside the center, before both parties left the site and the reported incident occurred.

It was recorded in the investigation records that the complainant was asked about the content of her complaint, as was the question of the accused, who denied what was attributed to him, and reported that there had been previous family disputes between the two parties, including mutual complaints, indicating that on the day the child was handed over, two of the children refused to go with their mother, and as a result she insulted him in front of the center’s employees, claiming that he had incited his children against their mother, and on the day of receiving one of his children, his father was among the least, and he headed alone in a direction different from his father’s direction, which indicates Malicious accusation.

The case papers also showed the statements of the accused’s father, who decided that he was the one who took the child after the vision was carried out, that he was driving the vehicle, and that the incident did not occur as stated in the report.

The Public Prosecution referred the accused to the Al Ain Court of First Instance, accusing him of committing an act that would endanger people’s lives, in accordance with Article (399/1) of the Federal Crimes and Penal Code, and demanding that the legally prescribed penalty be imposed.

During the trial session, which was held via video communication technology, the accused denied the accusation attributed to him, while his lawyer maintained his innocence, and argued that the accusation was malicious and invalid, explaining that the incident in question came in the context of an existing family dispute between the two parties, specifically repeated disputes related to custody and arrangements for seeing the children, which cast a shadow over the report in question.

The defense explained that the complaint was submitted three days after the alleged incident, without being attached to any technical or material evidence, noting that the report came after tensions occurred within the Child Vision Center, which made it less serious and weakened its credibility.

He argued that the accused was not driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, confirming that the child left the vision center with his grandfather, who was driving another vehicle, while the accused headed in a different direction, which contradicts the complainant’s story about pursuing the vehicle or endangering her life.

The defense pointed out that the complainant’s statements contradicted the testimony of her companion, especially with regard to the child’s seating location inside the vehicle, the nature of traffic, and the occurrence of a sudden deviation or stop, considering that these contradictions affect the essence of the accusation.

He also claimed that there was no traffic report, arrest report, or surveillance camera recordings from the vicinity of the vision center, despite the presence of cameras at the site, and that no injuries, material damage, or traffic accidents were recorded at the time, which denies the realization of the alleged danger, stressing that the police investigations did not produce clear evidence to support the accusation, and that the complainant’s statements were sent unsupported by evidence, in addition to the fact that the testimony supporting her was issued by a relative, which makes it lose its impartiality and makes it presumptive testimony on which no judgment can be based. By condemnation.

He also argued that there is no material element for the crime of endangering the lives of others, explaining that the mere allegation of reckless driving or sudden braking, without the realization of a real danger or the occurrence of an accident or harm, does not rise to the level of criminal offense stipulated in the law.

Based on the above, the defense sought a ruling to acquit the accused of the charge against him, due to the fact that the incident was not proven, the accusation was malicious, the statements contradicted, and the papers were devoid of any conclusive technical or material evidence.

Regarding the merits of the case, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that the legal requirement is for criminal cases to be decided according to the doctrine it has, based on what has an established basis in the papers, assessing the facts, examining the evidence, and taking the most likely of them to extract the truth from the core of the authority of the trial court, as long as its conclusion is permissible and based on existing evidence.

She pointed out that the accused denied the accusation against him at all stages of the investigation and trial, stressing that the principle is the innocence of the accused, and that the burden of proof falls on those who claim otherwise, and that a criminal conviction is based only on certainty and certainty, while doubt is interpreted in the interest of the accused.

The court pointed out that the victim did not provide evidence of the incident of endangering her life other than her statements that were sent, while the police investigations did not produce anything that supports or confirms the accusation, in addition to the existence of family disputes between the two parties. It also indicated that it was not confident in the testimony of the witness, because she is a relative of the victim, and considered her testimony speculative, which created doubt about the veracity of the account of the incident, and it concluded that the charge against the accused was not proven, and it ruled. In his presence, he was acquitted of the charge against him.