Court ruling9/7/2026

Court Acquits Defendant of Indecent Act on Grounds of Reasonable Doubt

The Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court acquitted a Sudanese citizen who was charged with committing an indecent act against a 23-year-old woman in Ramat Gan. Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak ruled that despite flaws in the defendant's explanations, his guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key facts

•Court: Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court
•Judge: Shlomit Ben Yitzhak
•Charge: Indecent act
•Location of the incident: Jabotinsky Street, Ramat Gan
•Victim: A 23-year-old woman
•The case number and exact date of the decision are not specified in the source

What the Charge Included

The incident occurred at night on Jabotinsky Street, while the woman was walking alongside her mother. According to the prosecution's account, a passerby approaching from the opposite direction touched her genital area with the hand in which he was holding a phone, and then grabbed her breasts with both hands. The prosecution argued that the acts were committed for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or humiliation, and charged the man with an indecent act.

The Parties' Positions

The woman said that after touching her, the man turned around and smiled, and then walked away; she and her mother began chasing him and caught up with him at a nearby gas station with the help of passersby. According to them, he apologized there and asked them not to call the police. The defendant, represented by attorney Ramzi Skis of the Public Defender's Office, maintained that he had accidentally touched the woman's pelvic area or the upper inner part of her thigh with the phone, and denied touching her breasts or having any sexual intent.

Why the Evidence Was Insufficient

The court ruled that the flight, apology, and request not to contact the police strengthened the suspicions, but also allowed for other explanations—given the shouting, the chase, and the man's status in Israel. The smile was likewise not considered unequivocal confirmation of guilt: during the confrontation, the investigator noted that such a facial expression was normal for the defendant. The complainant's mother was beside her but did not see the touching itself; moreover, during the proceedings, the description of the location and nature of the touching changed to some extent.

The Court's Decision

The court did not find that the woman or her mother had intentionally given false testimony, and noted that the complainant believes her account to be true. However, a favorable impression of her testimony is not sufficient for a conviction: in criminal proceedings, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge clarified that under the civil balance-of-probabilities standard, the woman's account could have been preferred, but the higher standard of proof in criminal law was not met.

What this means for you

The acquittal does not mean that the court determined the woman's complaint was false: it means that the evidence presented was insufficient for a criminal conviction. For a conviction in Israel, suspicions and even a more convincing account by one of the parties are not enough if reasonable doubt remains.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings