The owner accused him of beating a worker and seizing two devices

An employee is acquitted of stealing his company. The court was not satisfied with the evidence

«Dubai Criminal» questioned the validity of the incident. Cinematographer: Patrick Castillo

The Dubai Criminal Court acquitted an employee of stealing two devices belonging to the company in which he works, and assaulting his colleague, because it was not satisfied with the validity of the evidence presented in the lawsuit.

According to the indictment, the employee entered the victim's room, stole two hand drilling rigs, and when he tried to stop him, he punched him hard, and fell to the ground.

The victim said in the evidentiary report and the Public Prosecution's investigations that he was alone at the company's residence, and the defendant entered the room where he lives, took two drilling rigs worth 2666 dirhams, and asked him why, and told him that the owner of the company was the one who asked him to take them.

He added that he took the initiative to contact the owner of the company to verify him, and he told him that he did not allow the defendant to take the two devices, so he tried to stop him, but he beat him, so he fell to the ground, and the defendant fled.

The company's owner's agent stated that the defendant had been working for the company for two years, came to the workplace, tried to steal two drilling rigs, and assaulted a worker who tried to stop him.

The victim worker submitted a medical report, which stated that there was a visible injury to his chest, which is a bruise, while the accused denied the incident completely, stating that he was not guilty, had nothing to do with the crime of theft or assault on the victim, and that the charge was malicious.

In its reasoning, the court stated that there was no evidence in the papers that the accused had committed the forced robbery alleged by the whistleblower and the victim.

It stated that their statements were sent, and they did not establish evidence for them, and that they were corroborated in the papers only by the medical disclosure form, dated two days after the incident, and therefore the court is not satisfied with the validity of this form, nor is it reasonable or logical for the company to store its construction or excavation tools in the bedrooms designated for workers.

The court affirmed that in light of its doubts about the veracity of the incident as stated in their statements, and its lack of confidence in the validity of the evidence presented by the indicting authority, it acquits the accused.