Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The prosecuting authority, acting on Hessa Al Nuaimi’s complaint, alleges that Faris Rahman stole her power bank. The prosecution says the item was worth around AED 180, seeks its return, and does not seek an official sentence. Faris denies that the evidence proves theft and opposes a return order because the record does not show that he still has the item. 2. The hearing record includes a WhatsApp screenshot supplied by the defense. It reads: Hessa asked Faris to bring her power bank back the next day; Faris agreed to do so after his shift; and Hessa replied that he had already said that the previous day. The screenshot ends there. The same screenshot was presented more than once, but repeated presentation does not add independent proof. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the prosecution proved that Faris took the power bank without permission and with dishonest intent. The prosecution bears that burden under the supplied rules that an accusation is not proof and that each required criminal element must be supported by reliable evidence. 4. The second issue is whether the prosecution proved that the power bank remains to be returned by Faris and whether a return order is supported. The prosecution seeks that relief and must support it with evidence. The supplied proportional-remedy rule also requires the requested outcome to match what the record establishes. Submissions of the parties 5. The prosecution argues that Faris’s agreement to return the power bank confirms that he had taken it, and that the earlier missed promise and Hessa’s continued lack of the item show that he did not return it. It says Hessa did not permit Faris to use or borrow the power bank. It asks only for the item’s return, not a sentence. 6. Faris argues that a return request and delayed promise do not prove an unauthorized taking or dishonest intent. He says Hessa lent him the power bank, but acknowledges that the messages do not establish when or how he first obtained it. He also cannot confirm whether the item was later returned and does not claim that the screenshot proves a handover. He opposes a return order because the record does not establish that he still has the item or where it is. Evidence and findings 7. The screenshot is relevant evidence that Hessa asked Faris to return the power bank, that Faris agreed to do so after his shift, and that Hessa reminded him of an earlier promise. It supports an inference that Faris had the item when the messages were exchanged and that a return was expected. The screenshot does not show the original transfer, whether Hessa gave permission, what Faris intended when he obtained the item, or what happened after the last message. 8. The screenshot is presented as a WhatsApp exchange, but the record contains no separate verification of its authenticity or context. Even accepting its contents as accurately reproduced, its limited wording does not prove the disputed original taking. The prosecution’s descriptions of Hessa’s complaint and her position about permission are submissions in this record, not a direct account from Hessa or a produced complaint that independently establishes those facts. Faris’s lending explanation is likewise an attributed account, not independently confirmed evidence. 9. The prosecution says Hessa still does not have the power bank. That assertion is relevant to the requested remedy, but the record contains no direct testimony or other evidence establishing where the item is now or that Faris still possesses it. Faris’s inability to confirm a return does not prove that he retained the item; nor does it prove that a handover occurred. The present status remains uncertain. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the prosecution has not proved dishonest taking. The screenshot supports possession at the time of the exchange and a promise to return the item. Those facts may raise suspicion about the circumstances, particularly given the earlier missed promise, but they do not establish how Faris first obtained the power bank or whether he obtained it without permission. They also do not, by themselves, establish dishonest intent at the time of obtaining it. 11. The prosecution argues that Faris would have denied knowing about the item if he had not stolen it. That is not the only reasonable explanation for agreeing to return an item that someone asks for, and the screenshot does not record an admission of theft. The prosecution’s assertion that Hessa did not permit borrowing is not supported here by a direct account or other independent proof. Faris’s explanation that it was lent to him is also unconfirmed, but the burden remains with the prosecution; Faris is not required to prove that explanation. Under the supplied rules on burden, presumption, and proof of each element, the unresolved question of permission and intent must be decided against the prosecution. The dishonest-taking issue is not proven. 12. On the second issue, the screenshot and the prosecution’s account support that Hessa wanted the power bank returned. They also show an earlier missed promise. But the screenshot ends before any later handover, and the record does not establish whether the item was returned, remains with Faris, or is elsewhere. Hessa’s reported lack of possession does not, without more, establish that Faris has the item or can return it. The prosecution has not proved the factual basis for an order requiring Faris to return it. The return-and-remedy issue is not proven. 13. The prosecution’s request for return is not a substitute for proof of theft, and the uncertain return status does not fill the separate gap about how Faris obtained the item. Because the prosecution has not proved the alleged criminal conduct, no finding of guilt or sentence is justified. Because present possession is also unproven, the court cannot make the requested return order on this record. This decision does not find that Faris’s lending explanation is true or that the item was returned; it reflects the limits of the evidence and the prosecution’s burden. Final order 14. The allegation that Faris Rahman dishonestly took Hessa Al Nuaimi’s power bank is not proven and is dismissed. Faris is not found guilty on the evidence presented. 15. The request for an order requiring Faris to return the power bank is denied because the record does not establish that he presently possesses it or can return it. No sentence is imposed. No monetary award is made. The prosecution’s requested relief is therefore denied in full.