For kidnapping a victim with the intent of killing a group of people

Re-qualification of criminal acts due to the fact that convicted persons do not have a clear intention to kill the victim, their actions were re-classified under Article 389 of the criminal code and the size of the imposed punishment was reduced by the verdict of the specialized Inter-District Court for criminal cases of Karaganda region dated September 19, 2017 A. previously convicted on December 5, 2006 by Part 2 of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code), released on November 19, 2009 in connection with the full serving of the sentence, - Sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment by paragraphs 3), 7) of Part 2 of Article 24, Article 99, 10 years of imprisonment by paragraphs 1), 4) of Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code, 1 year of imprisonment by Part 2 of Article 287 of the Criminal Code, 18 years of imprisonment by Part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, serving the sentence in an emergency safe institution of the Penal correction system. In accordance with paragraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 14 of the criminal code, dangerous recidivism of crimes is recognized in the actions of A. By the decision of the Judicial Board of the Karaganda regional court for criminal cases dated October 31, 2017, the verdict was left unchanged. According to the documents of the criminal case, A. convicted on February 1, 2015 and Sh., N., S., E. (convicted by the verdict of this Court of August 24, 2015) in front of the hotel "Avtomotel" in Karaganda were a group of people connected with the abduction of the victim K. In a Toyota camry car, headed for the House No. 53, located on Volochaevskaya street, Karaganda. Arriving at this address, they waited for the victim to leave the House.

For kidnapping a victim with the intent of killing a group of people

At that time, A. handed over one of the two barreled firearms of the "OSA" brand to S., and the other to Sh., with the possibility of shooting with wound cartridges, which he illegally acquired, stored and transported with him in order to carry out the above-mentioned criminal intentions inside the vehicle. At about 11: 30 in front of the said House, the convicts Sh., N., S., E. The victim hit K., using weapons against him, conspired with A. and, realizing his criminal intentions aimed at kidnapping a person, brought K. to A.'s car and planted him against his will. On the way, they were followed by police officers and the gates of the station at the exit from the city of Karaganda were closed, so the convicted A. was a group of people connected with the abduction of the victim and could not bring the crimes aimed at murder to the end due to circumstances beyond their control.  However, the court's conclusion that the convicted A. attempted to kill the victim K. is not substantiated by the case materials. No evidence has been established that he conspired with Sh., N., S., E., consulted about the murder of K. and made a plan against him. On the contrary, according to the answers given by the convicts A., Sh., N., S., E., They went to Astana in search of work, and after they could not find it, five of them went back to Almaty. Since they left the capital late, they arrived in Karaganda and spent the night there. The next day, they said that the victim went to K.'s house with the idea of demanding money owed to someone, beat him, used a traumatic weapon and forced him into the car, but on the way, the police officers ran away from the car, pulling the victim out of the car. At the same time, the convicted person had only one criminal idea. That is, he wanted to kidnap and threaten the victim K. with the use of force and weapons, thereby getting back the borrowed money. However, the fact that they went to demand borrowed money was confirmed not only by the unambiguous answers of the convicts, but also by the victim himself.

In court, the victim indicated that when K. was beaten by the convicts and put inside the car against his will, A., who was driving the car, asked him about why he was not giving the debt, however, he did not owe it to him, but only owed it to a man named Ch.  All the evidence in the criminal case indicates that at the very beginning the convicts had thoughts not to kill the victim, but to intimidate him, to borrow money. It is undeniable that the convicts did not have the opportunity and reasons for such intentions to change in a short time. At the same time, if A., Sh., N., S., E. came up with the idea of killing the victim, then they did not openly, did not appear to other witnesses, had every chance to kill the victim secretly and at the moment of leaving their home. But, they only put him in the car, limiting himself to causing minor physical injuries. The fact that all this happened in the presence of other people, the victim herself said. For this purpose, instead of firearms, they used Barrel-Free weapons "Guard" and "OSA", which are fired with special rezenke bullets that are prone only to injury. The possibility of killing the victim K. was also inside the car. However, the five of them did not touch him in the car, but only threatened him with words and asked for the money he owed. The fact that it was not intended to kill the victim, but to kidnap him and threaten him with the purpose of returning the borrowed money is confirmed by the false threatening words that E. told the victim on his mobile phone: "dig the Earth, prepare it, we are here." The absence of any dug pit is undeniably established in the case. The victim, K. himself, could not say whether A. spoke to someone in particular or not. However, the fact that the convicts shot the victim with rezenke bullets 3 times and inflicted physical injuries does not prove that they had an intention to kill the latter.  Such actions related to the infliction of minor injuries are covered by paragraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 125 of the criminal code (kidnapping of a person associated with the use of force dangerous to life or health). However, the court of first instance incorrectly ranked the actions of A. by paragraphs 3), 7) of Part 3 of Article 24, Part 2 of Article 99 of the criminal code. On the basis of the above, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on criminal cases amends the judicial acts of local courts in respect of convicted A., re-classifies the criminal acts of A. from paragraphs 3), 7) of Part 2 of Article 24, Article 99 of the Criminal Code to Part 3 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code, appoints a sentence of 2 years of imprisonment and partially adds penalties for the totality of crimes on the basis of Part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code to the final 11 years of imprisonment "no," he said., he was appointed to serve his sentence in the highest security institution of the Penal correction system. In his actions, he changed the recognition of dangerous recidivism of crimes in accordance with paragraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 14 of the criminal code and recognized recidivism of crimes in accordance with Part 1 of Article 14 of the criminal code. The remaining parts of the judicial acts were left unchanged. The protest of the prosecutor general of the Republic of Kazakhstan was satisfied.

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