The Criminal Court has convicted Saeed Hussain of Neykurandhoo in Haadhaalu Atoll of murdering his own brother in October last year.
“Considering the confession of the accused, and as it is proven by the words of the doctor who declared the death of Umar Hussain [his brother], the death was the direct result of the stabbings,’’ the judge said.
The judge said that Saeed could not prove that his actions were conducted without the intention of murdering his brother, ruling him guilty of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
He also ordered that Saeed fast for two months.
Saeed’s brother Umar died after he was stabbed nine times in different parts of his body. One of the attacks cut the veins in his neck.
Saeed admitted that he stabbed his brother but claimed he was drunk at the time, did not even know how many times he stabbed his brother. He claimed he attacked his brother after he reportedly saw him attacking his mother.
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
Court grants opportunity to appoint lawyers in murder of 16-year old- Court extends detention of MNDF officer accused of planning Dr Afrasheem’s murder
- Trial begins of second suspect arrested over murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali
- PG to appeal Shifan murder case after Home Minister and Police Commissioner express concern over ruling
- Criminal Court acquits six suspects in Shifan’s murder case, despite DNA evidence
- Criminal Court concludes hearings into terrorism charges against Shahum
I wonder if the defense attorney advised the defendant that the law, as now, cannot convict on criminal charges WITHOUT a confession.
The reference to evidence is just sugar coating with absolutely no significance.
The pathetic state of our judiciary.
@royal class syndrome - didnt the article say "Considering the confession of the accused..." isnt that whats required then?
It seems that Maldivians have an extremely low tolerance to alcohol. 😛
legalise alcohol and regulate drinking age!
Save the expenses to the state.
Isn't eye for eye, the verdict we should advocate. Execute him.
What more proof would you require?
What more would anyone, anywhere get, on an other murder case for a just verdict to be handed over?
I do not know whether it is the reporter's mistake but statements within this article seem to suggest that the judge considered the onus of proof to be on the defendant!!!!!!
The state ALWAYS bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. Was the state able to prove that the defendant was not drunk at the time? If not, could the sentence have been muted as Shariah itself goes on and on about alcohol affecting the sanity and judgement of your average human being.
Why 2 months fasting if he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison?
What good does it do? Hoping to create more room in the prisons by making him a bit thinner?
@ Dave on Tue, 28th Sep 2010 2:59 PM.
Did u know that defense of INTOXICATION is not admissible in a criminal court which basic principles are based clearly on Islamic Shari'ah...will full intoxication is a crime it self. So the burden of proof will not be considered in this case. since there is a confession by the defendant.