(Brunei, 11th) A local man was sentenced to 15 months in prison for assaulting another individual and causing property damage.
Defendant Izzuddin faced two charges: intentionally striking the male victim on the right side of the head, causing injury, and using a slingshot to launch nuts at the glass window in front of the victim's house, resulting in a damage of $1900.
During the trial, the deputy prosecutor called eight eyewitnesses, including the victim and his daughter. CCTV footage corroborated their testimony, showing the defendant damaging property prior to assaulting the victim. A medical report confirmed that the victim's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma.
In defense, the defendant denied all charges, claiming that he acted in self-defense and that his confession to the police was made under duress. However, the court found his explanations to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unconvincing.
The judge ruled that the prosecution had proven both charges beyond reasonable doubt and considered the prosecution's evidence to be more credible than the defendant's testimony.
Upon sentencing, the court emphasized that these crimes involved violence and willful property damage, warranting imprisonment.
Defendant Izzuddin faced two charges: intentionally striking the male victim on the right side of the head, causing injury, and using a slingshot to launch nuts at the glass window in front of the victim's house, resulting in a damage of $1900.
During the trial, the deputy prosecutor called eight eyewitnesses, including the victim and his daughter. CCTV footage corroborated their testimony, showing the defendant damaging property prior to assaulting the victim. A medical report confirmed that the victim's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma.
In defense, the defendant denied all charges, claiming that he acted in self-defense and that his confession to the police was made under duress. However, the court found his explanations to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unconvincing.
The judge ruled that the prosecution had proven both charges beyond reasonable doubt and considered the prosecution's evidence to be more credible than the defendant's testimony.
Upon sentencing, the court emphasized that these crimes involved violence and willful property damage, warranting imprisonment.