Khaberni - The Bahrain High Criminal Court of Appeal acquitted an Ethiopian woman of forging a marriage contract with a Gulf man and attributing a child to him, and the court ordered the cancellation of the first-degree sentence convicting her to three years in prison and deportation, after the court confirmed that the marriage was established by the witnesses and the plaintiff himself, in addition to proving that her signature was authentic on the marriage contract written by her own hand. However, this was done in his presence after he accompanied her to the embassy of her country to authenticate the marriage contract, which proved the validity of its content and what was stated therein.
The details of the case date back to a report from a Gulf man stating that he had met the accused about a year ago, their relationship solidified, and since he frequently visited the Kingdom of Bahrain, she would go to his place of residence and stay with him throughout his stay in the kingdom. However, he discovered that the accused had stolen movable property from his residence, so he filed a criminal report, and was surprised by her release after she submitted a forged marriage contract between them to the court, in addition to filing a legitimate lawsuit to prove the marriage contract and the paternity of a child, and that she submitted the same forged contract under investigation.
He added that he had not married her nor had he entered into any contract with her, and it was proved by the forgery expert report that the accused was the writer of the signature attributed to both parties of the contract in her own hand and issued by her, and the sentence was issued convicting and punishing her, while she appealed in front of the Court of Appeal insisting on the validity of the marriage consented between them and the authenticated contract between them, and that she signed the contract without any attempt to conceal or imitate or simulate the husband's signature.
Authority of the Shari'a court rulings
The Court of Appeal proceeded with the lawsuit and noted in the judgment reasons that the rulings issued by the Shari'a courts have their authority before the criminal court and the judgment in the criminal lawsuit is pending while it depends on the Shari'a courts under conditions, and that the criminal judge is not restricted if the lawsuit related to the criminal aspect is raised before him, especially in the case of forging a "marriage contract" as there is no fault on him to conclude in the act of forgery once that document is presented before the Shari'a courts as evidence.
It also indicated that what is presented to the court is a marriage document and the matter of its forgery, which constitutes a crime by law and the criminal court has jurisdiction to judge it without discussing the extent of the marriage relationship and the legal requirements that are the competence of the Shari'a rulings and investigation of its legal and legitimate effects.
Lack of criminal intent
She also added that the act of forgery requires criminal intent, which was not present in the case where it was initially proven by a report from the plaintiff that his ex-wife stole movable items from their home, which is an implicit admission from him of the occurrence of the marriage and that they shared a single residence, in addition to the testimony of their neighbor that they lived together, which is consistent with what came in the claimed-to-be-forged document verified on a date prior to his report indicating the match with the actual incident and does not affect what the plaintiff stated that the accused was just a friend.
The court also pointed out that what came from the certification office and the verification of its correctness that the accused and the plaintiff had indeed gone together to authenticate the contract is evidence enough of his awareness of its content through the marital relationship and his consent to it and his acknowledgment, which confirms what came from her defense that it was he who asked her to sign in the spaces of the marriage contract exploiting her lack of education, where she did not sign with the intention to forge, and what was confirmed from the forgery report that she signed the contract without any attempt to imitate, alter, or deceive that it was he who signed the contract which indicates her good faith, the court therefore doubted the presence of criminal intent, and for these reasons, the court ruled to accept the appeal formally and substantively by canceling the appealed sentence and deciding anew the acquittal of the appellant from the charges attributed to her.
