التطبيقات القضائية في تكييف التهمة الجنائية وتعديلها : دراسة مقارنة في الفقة الاسلامي وقانوني الاجراءات الجنائية اليمني والسوداني

Abstract

The study is about framing and modifying the criminal charge. A comparative study between Islamic jurisprudence, Yemeni and Sudanese law. The study showed the concept of criminal charge, its framing, importance, language and similar meanings, the authority responsible for directing criminal charges and their effects on the accused, and the authority of the criminal court to amend the charge and the legal description and clarify the conditions of the criminal court and the consequences of the amendment. The study concluded several findings and recommendations of the most important of them are: 1- The study showed that framing is one of the most important subjects of the legal application practiced by the criminal judge and the members of the Public Prosecution, where the importance of framing is particularly important in determining the type of criminal charge, determining jurisdiction, and its importance to the parties to the criminal case. 2- Violation of the judge restricts the limits of the case, is considered invalid, where the judge cannot judge in an incident outside his scope of work, through the decision of referral, because thus he gave himself the authority of indictment, as he looked in other matter than what is requested by the opponent plaintiff. 3- Through the study, it was found that one of the conditions of the court to exercise its authority to amend the charge is that the charge should be amended during the trial and before the judgment in the case and the added circumstances have been addressed by the investigation and are relevant to the original case. 4- A specialized judiciary must be established. The current judiciary is based on the principle of the unity of the judiciary, where the same judges are directly involved in the criminal courts and civil courts. The absence of specialization may lead to confusion and to the issuance of incomplete judgments. It may lead to conflicting or incorrect rulings. Litigation, and frequent loopholes aimed at reform and correction, leading to protracted conflict for years.