Criminal cases of causing death by negligence

   Despite the increased attention of the state to the problem of protecting the health of citizens from criminal attacks, statistics record an incessant increase in crimes against human health, including those related to causing death by negligence. The public danger of causing death by negligence is expressed in gross indiscipline, violations of normal rules in everyday life, inattention, and carelessness of the perpetrator. Causing death by negligence is not considered murder by the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The use of a broader concept in art.104 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan allows you to freely operate this norm in cases of reckless deprivation of the victim's life in the course of the perpetrator's professional activity in violation of any safety rules (if there is no special norm in the Code)

The relevance of the topic lies in the fact that the political and social transformations taking place in the country, the formation of the foundations of civil society and the rule of law marked a fundamental turning point in the approach to assessing universal values. The Basic Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan has established the priority of human rights. Ensuring a person's personal safety and protecting their constitutional rights and freedoms have become one of the main tasks of the state. The right to health occupies an important place in the system of human and civil rights and freedoms. The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on public health protection guarantee health protection and medical care to every citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

             The State's health protection activities cover a wide range of activities, including the protection of human health from criminal encroachments. The central place in protecting the health of citizens from criminal attacks belongs to criminal law as an effective means of preventing and suppressing crimes against human health.

             The object of the crime in question is human life. The objective side of the crime in question is actions or omissions that violate certain rules of precaution and cause death to another person as a result. In this case, the consequence of the act in the form of causing death to the victim must be causally related to the act of the perpetrator.

             If, as a result of a fall from a push and impact of the victim on any object (stone, curb, etc.), his death occurs, then the perpetrator is responsible for causing death by negligence, provided that the perpetrator had no intention of causing serious harm to health and depriving the victim of life.

             The composition of the crime is material by design. The crime is considered completed from the moment of the victim's death.

             The subjective side of the crime presupposes guilt in the form of negligence: arrogance and negligence. Causing death by presumption means that a person foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences (death) as a result of his actions (inaction), but without sufficient grounds thoughtlessly counted on preventing these consequences.

             Negligent infliction of death as a result of criminal arrogance must be distinguished from murder with indirect intent, when the perpetrator, anticipating the possibility of death, deliberately allows such a consequence of his act to occur or treats this consequence indifferently.

             When death is caused by negligence, a person does not foresee the possibility of its occurrence as a result of his actions (inaction), although with due care and foresight he should have and could have foreseen these consequences. The infliction of death by negligence in the form of criminal negligence should be distinguished from accidental death, when a person was not aware and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not have realized the social danger of his actions (inaction) or did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences and, due to the circumstances of the case, should not or could not have foreseen them. Innocent death should also be recognized as cases when a person who foresaw the possibility of consequences in the form of death of the victim during the commission of the act counted on preventing these consequences with sufficient justification or could not prevent them due to the inconsistency of his psychophysiological qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychological overloads (art.23 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

             104 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is necessary to establish the existence of negligent guilt in relation to the criminal result-the death of another person.

104 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for liability for negligent death of two or more persons. To qualify the act of the perpetrator under Part 2, the death of at least two persons is necessary (for example, several people in a fire out of mischief, a group of tourists through the fault of its leader, etc.)

The subject of the crime is a sane individual who has reached the age of 16.

Reckless deprivation of life in the course of committing crimes provided for in Articles 106, 116,117,119-121, 125-127 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is covered by the elements of these types of crimes and does not require additional qualifications under Article 104 of the Criminal Code.

The acts provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of art.104 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan relate to crimes of minor gravity.

In the verdict of the Karatau district Court of Shymkent dated May 26, 2014 in respect of defendant S., the water part of the verdict does not specify all participants in the criminal process, the victim and the defendant are not specified as participants in the process, as required by the norm of art.390 CPC RK.

The descriptive and motivational part of the same verdict does not indicate whether a civil claim was filed in the present case.

So, by the verdict of the district court no.2 Medeu district of Almaty dated June 29, 2015 in respect of K. from the convicted K. in favor of the representative of the victim M. moral damage in the amount of 100,000 tenge and a state fee in the amount of 991 tenge were collected to the state revenue, however, the descriptive and motivational part of the verdict did not include references to laws on compensation for moral damage.

In determining the severity of the damage to health, the courts were guided by the conclusions of forensic medical examinations, as indicated in paragraph 31 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 11, 2007 No. 1 "On the qualification of certain crimes against human life and health."

 

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