The Dubai Criminal Court sentenced a Gulf national to ten years in prison for the intentional murder of an Asian man with premeditation amid a dispute over the use of animal feed waste. Investigations revealed that the accused had intended to kill the victim and had even informed a worker at his father's farm about his plans.
During the commission of the crime, the murderer acted strangely; he struck the victim on the head and chest with a hammer while he was asleep, then wrapped the body and put it in his vehicle, driving into a desert area while making noise with his car, looking for a place to dispose of the body. In a panic, he dumped the body in a sandy area. When leaving, his car got stuck in the sand, prompting him to abandon it and return on foot after disposing of the murder weapon. A police patrol stopped him, and he claimed that he had run over the victim but had not killed him, saying he panicked and discarded the body where it was found.
A witness from Dubai Police testified during the public prosecution investigation that a report was received about a person making noise while "drifting" in his car near the Global Village. He was apprehended by a security guard, and when a patrol arrived, they observed blood covering the entire left side and the bed of his vehicle. When questioned about the blood, he claimed to have been involved in a traffic accident with someone and guided them to the spot where he had thrown the body, leading initially to a traffic offense charge. However, subsequent investigations revealed a conflict between the accused and the victim, in the presence of a third person working at the father’s farm.
When questioned, the mentioned worker stated that the accused had approached him, confessed he was going to kill the victim, and asked for his help, which he refused. The witness explained that he and the victim were sleeping on the night of the incident when the murderer woke him and asked him to quietly accompany him to the car, stating he was going to kill his colleague. The accused was armed with a hammer, which shocked the witness, causing him to flee in fear of being attacked himself.
When confronted later with this information, the accused admitted to the act, stating he struck the victim and wrapped the body in a blanket before throwing it in a sandy area. He also guided them to the location of the hammer used in the crime. Upon being re-questioned, he denied striking the victim in the chest, insisting instead that he ran over him with his car and did not kill him. A psychological report from a medical committee confirmed his awareness and decision-making capability regarding his actions. Forensic reports showed that the victim's injuries were consistent with being struck by a solid object, suggesting they did not result from a traffic accident.
During the trial, the defendant's counsel argued that he was under the influence of narcotics and did not recall the events. The family of the victim submitted a letter relinquishing their right to retribution. The court, in its ruling, expressed confidence in the premeditated intent to kill exhibited by the accused based on the circumstances surrounding the incident, affirming the calculated planning and execution of the murder. However, the court decided to show some leniency given the circumstances, reducing the sentence to ten years in prison.
