Actions to protect life from socially dangerous encroachment are recognized as necessary defense.
By the verdict of the Temirtau City Court of the Karaganda region on October 14, 2008: A., was sentenced under Part 1 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 6 years of imprisonment in a general regime penal colony. The court of Appeal upheld the verdict. A. was found guilty of murder during a quarrel with her common-law husband T. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court, having considered the petition of the convict, concluded to cancel the judicial acts issued in the case and dismiss the case on the following grounds. In violation of the requirements of art. 19, 23 and 24 of the CPC did not take into account the evidence testifying to the innocence of the convict, while the existing doubts were interpreted not in favor of the defense, but in favor of the prosecution. According to A.'s testimony, T., intoxicated, demanded money for alcohol, threatened, and wanted to stab her with a knife. T. was previously convicted of murder, and repeatedly beat her. Fearing for her life and defending herself from the attack, she automatically stabbed T. with a knife lying on the table. She had no intention of murder. A.'s testimony that she took T.'s life. in the process of defending against his attacks, they are not only not refuted by the evidence collected in the case, but also find their confirmation in them. According to the expert's conclusion, T. suffered one blind penetrating stab wound to the epigastric region with damage to the pericardium and the right ventricle of the heart.
Actions to protect life from socially dangerous encroachment are recognized as necessary defense.
An eyewitness to the crime, witness K., confirms the testimony of the convict that T., intoxicated, began demanding money for alcohol, threatened A., and swung a knife at her. K., frightened, ran outside. Other witnesses A., S., and B. also testified that the deceased did not work, abused alcohol, was aggressive when intoxicated, and caused scandals. The case materials show that the criminal prosecution authorities, having actually recognized T.'s assault on A. with the use of a knife, allowed an accusatory bias and qualified A.'s actions. like premeditated murder. By the investigator's decision, the initiation of a criminal case against A. under Article 99 of the Criminal Code was refused due to the absence of corpus delicti in her actions. At the same time, it is contradictorily stated that the actions of the deceased contain only formal signs of a crime. T. did attack A. with a knife, however, the case materials did not prove that T. committed a socially dangerous act or caused harm to A. These conclusions directly contradict the law and the explanations contained in paragraph 5 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 2 dated May 11, 2007. "On the application of legislation on necessary defense," that necessary defense is permissible not only when harm has already been caused by the attacker's intentional or careless actions, but also when harm has not been initiated, but a real threat of harm has been created. The court of first instance went beyond the scope of the charges and recognized that the attack by T. did not take place at all, the murder was committed in an argument. The court of appeal, leaving this verdict unchanged, justified its conclusions by the fact that the court had not established circumstances confirming the existence of a real threat to the life and health of A. The convict turned out to be more active than the victim and was ahead of him, besides, she could have left the place, following K. These conclusions directly and explicitly contradict the requirements of the criminal procedural law on the presumption of innocence and the Criminal Law on the right to necessary defense. In such circumstances, it should be recognized that A., defending her life from a socially dangerous encroachment by T., was in a state of necessary defense. In accordance with Article 32 of the Criminal Code, it is not a crime to harm an encroaching person in a state of necessary defense. When protecting the person, home, property, land plot and other rights of the defender or other persons protected by law from the interests of society or the state from socially dangerous encroachment by causing harm to the encroaching person, provided that the limits of necessary defense have not been exceeded. He attacked a person's life and used a knife as a weapon. In this case, taking into account the provisions of Part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Code, A.'s actions do not exceed the limits of necessary defense. Based on the above, guided by Part 1 of Article 37 and Articles 459, 467 and 468 of the CPC, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court decided to cancel the judicial acts against A., terminate the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti in her actions. A. was immediately released from custody.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
