Causing serious harm to health in circumstances where the perpetrator did not foresee but should have and could have foreseen the occurrence of such consequences is qualified as negligent.

By the verdict of the Medeu District Court of Almaty dated October 19, 2012, S. was sentenced under part 1 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison, 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 19, 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. By the verdict of the court S. He was found guilty of striking B. in the jaw on June 02, 2012, during an argument with B., from which he fell, hitting his head on the asphalt, and received a closed craniocerebral injury with a moderate brain contusion, which qualifies as serious harm to health. On June 19, 2012, during his arrest, S. resisted and used violence against government officials - he tore his T-shirt and caused minor harm to the health of a police officer.

Causing serious harm to health in circumstances where the perpetrator did not foresee but should have and could have foreseen the occurrence of such consequences is qualified as negligent.

By the decisions of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated December 10, 2012 and the Cassation Judicial Board of the Almaty City Court dated March 26, 2013, the verdict of the court remained unchanged. In the petition, convict S. indicated that the sentence was unfair, considered the punishment imposed on him excessively harsh, and asked to investigate and impose a non-custodial sentence. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court, having discussed the arguments of the petition, came to the conclusion that the law had been improperly applied to convict S. The court of first instance incorrectly applied the criminal law in qualifying the actions of the convicted person. Whereas, 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, indisputably established the following. During the quarrel, convict S. punched B. in the face, which caused the victim to fall. During the fall, the victim hit the back of his head on the asphalt, as a result of which he suffered serious harm to his health. The court of first instance came to the same conclusion, explicitly stating in the verdict that B. the convict fell from the blow and, hitting his head on the asphalt, suffered serious injury to his health. In this case, there was no intent to cause serious harm in the actions of S., who punched the victim only once in the face.

S. did not foresee the possibility of the socially dangerous consequences of his actions, although with due care and foresight he should have and could have foreseen that the victim of his blow could fall, hit his head and receive serious harm to 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, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court changed the verdict of the Medeu District Court of Almaty, the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Almaty City Court in relation to S.. S. reclassified the actions of the convicted person from part 1 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code to part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code, according to which she assigned him to 1 (one) a year of restriction of freedom. The verdict against S. under part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code remained unchanged.  On the basis of part 2 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, she imposed 2 (two) years of restriction of freedom on the totality of crimes. In accordance with part 1 of Article 45 of the Criminal Code, she assigned the following duties to convicted S.: 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 article 62 of the Criminal Code, S. counted the time of his detention in the period of serving the restriction of freedom. The rest of the verdict against S. remained unchanged. S. 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