Five-year-jail term upheld for man who tried to murder his wife

AMMAN —  The Court of Cassation has upheld a March 2017 Criminal Court ruling sentencing a man to five years in prison,  after convicting him of attempting to murder his wife in an Amman neighbourhood in September 2016.

The court declared the defendant guilty of stabbing his wife, who is also his cousin, as she was sleeping at their home on September 9 following a domestic dispute and handed him a 10-year prison term.

However, the court decided to immediately reduce the sentence to half because the victim dropped the charges against her husband.

On the day of the incident, the victim woke up from stab wounds that were inflicted on her by her husband who was yelling that “he wanted to kill her because of a domestic dispute earlier in the day”, court papers said.

“The defendant stabbed his wife repeatedly on different parts of her body with a kitchen knife,” the court document noted.

The victim ran towards the door but “the defendant followed her and stabbed her in the back. She screamed for help and awoken her father-in-law who rescued her,” the court added. 

The victim, who underwent surgery and had part of her intestine removed as a result of the stabbing, attempted to withdraw her complaint against the defendant at the criminal prosecutor’s office but “her request was denied because the common right clause is applicable in this case since a crime was committed”, the court stated.

The defendant had contested the Criminal Court ruling arguing that “the victim provided contradictory statements in the court hearing and should instead be tried for perjury”.

The defendant also claimed that “he was unaware of what he was doing when he stabbed his wife and the Criminal Court failed to refer him to a psychiatric institute for mental evaluation”, the court said in its ruling.

However, the Court of Cassation ruled that the Criminal Court proceedings were correct and the defendant deserved the punishment he received.

“It was evident during court hearings that the defendant was sane and aware of what is happening. Therefore, there is no need to refer him to a psychiatric evaluation institute,” the higher court ruled.

The higher court comprised of judges Mohammad Ibrahim, Naji Zubi, Yassin Abdullat, Nayef Samarat and Bassem Mubeidin.