Causing serious harm to health and in relation to the death of the victim, there was negligent guilt in his actions, if the perpetrator's intent did not cover what he had done, it is subject to qualification as negligent harm to health.
Medeu District Court of Almaty on October 19, 2012: S., - sentenced under part 1 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code to 5 years of imprisonment, under part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code to 2 years of restriction of liberty, on the basis of part 1 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code by absorbing a less severe punishment with a more severe one, finally to 5 years of imprisonment with serving punishments in a general regime penal colony. The convict's sentence has been calculated since October 2012. It was recovered from S. in favor of B. due to compensation for material damage caused by 595,000 tenge and 100,000 tenge for moral damage. According to the verdict, S. was found guilty of the fact that on June 2, 2012 During the quarrel with B., he struck him in the jaw, which caused the latter to fall, hitting his head on the asphalt, and suffered a closed craniocerebral injury with a moderate brain contusion, which qualifies as serious harm to health. During his arrest on June 19, 2012, S. resisted and used violence against government officials – he tore his T-shirt and caused minor harm to the health of a police officer. The verdict was left unchanged by the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court, having considered the case at the request of the convicted person, changed the court's verdict against S. on the following grounds. The materials of the criminal case, including the testimony of the convicted person, the victim and eyewitness witnesses of the crime, the conclusion of the forensic medical examination has indisputably established the following. During the quarrel, S. punched B. in the face, as a result of which the victim fell. During the fall, B. hit the back of his head on the asphalt, as a result of which his health was seriously damaged. The court of first instance came to the same conclusion, directly establishing in the verdict that B. fell from the convict's blow, hitting his head on the asphalt, and received serious harm to his health.
Causing serious harm to health and in relation to the death of the victim, there was negligent guilt in his actions, if the perpetrator's intent did not cover what he had done, it is subject to qualification as negligent harm to health.
In the actions of S., who inflicted only one punch to the victim's face, there was no intent to cause serious harm. S. did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions, although with due care and foresight he should have and could have foreseen that the victim from his blow could fall, hit his head, and receive serious harm health. In such circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of Article 21 of the Criminal Code, S.'s actions against the victim are subject to qualification under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code as causing serious harm to health by negligence.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 459, 467 and 468 of the CPC, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court decided to amend the judicial acts issued against S. The actions of the convicted person should be reclassified from Part 1 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code to Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code, according to which he should be assigned 1 (one) a year of restriction of freedom. Leave the verdict under Part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code unchanged. On the basis of Part 2 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, for the totality of crimes, to appoint S. 2 (two) years of restriction of freedom.in accordance with Part 1 of Article 45 of the Criminal Code, assign to S. performing the following duties: do not change your permanent place of residence and work without notifying a specialized authority, do not visit certain places, do not leave your place of residence in your free time, and do not travel to other localities without the permission of a specialized authority. In accordance with the requirements of art. 62 of the Criminal Code, to set off S. during the time of serving the restriction of freedom, the time of his detention. To leave the rest of the sentence unchanged. c. to be released from custody immediately, to satisfy the petition.
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
