Infliction of Bodily Beatings by a Group of Persons

1. Applicable Legal Provision

Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Battery”

Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes criminal liability for battery or other violent acts causing physical pain but not resulting in minor bodily harm, if such acts are committed, in particular, by:

“a group of persons or a group of persons acting by prior conspiracy.”

The sanctions provided for in Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan include:

• a fine ranging from 100 to 200 MCI;
• corrective labour in the same amount;
• community service ranging from 100 to 200 hours;
• arrest for a period of 30 to 50 days. (Law and Legal Services)

In 2026, the Monthly Calculation Index (MCI) amounts to KZT 4,325; accordingly, the fine ranges as follows:

• 100 MCI = KZT 432,500;
• 200 MCI = KZT 865,000. (Government Services of Kazakhstan)

Article 109-1 was introduced by Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 15 April 2024 No. 72-VIII, and the relevant provisions entered into force on 16 June 2024. The Supreme Court specifically drew the attention of courts to the need to take this transitional period into account when considering cases under Articles 108-1, 109-1 and other relevant offences. (Adilet)

2. What Exactly Does “Battery Committed by a Group of Persons” Mean?

This is a fundamental issue.

The mere presence of several people at the scene of an incident does not automatically mean that the offence was committed by a group of persons.

A specific definition is provided in Article 31 of the Criminal Code:

Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Criminal Liability for Criminal Offences Committed by a Group of Persons

Part 1 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code:

A criminal offence shall be deemed to have been committed by a group of persons if two or more perpetrators jointly participated in its commission without prior conspiracy. (Law and Legal Services)

Part 2 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code:

A criminal offence shall be deemed to have been committed by a group of persons acting by prior conspiracy if the persons agreed in advance to commit the criminal offence jointly. (Law and Legal Services)

Accordingly, two distinct scenarios must be distinguished:

For qualification under subparagraph 4) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, prior conspiracy is not mandatory, since the provision expressly covers both scenarios.

3. Key Distinction: “Several Persons Present” ≠ “A Group of Perpetrators”

Let us consider the following situation:

Situation No. 1

A. struck the victim five times.

B. was standing nearby but did not intervene.

C. was recording the incident on a mobile phone.

In this situation, there are insufficient grounds to automatically qualify the actions as having been committed by a group of persons.

It is necessary to establish joint execution of the objective elements of the offence.

Situation No. 2

A. is holding the victim.

B. is striking the victim.

Here, the issue of joint commission by a group is considerably more evident: two persons are directly carrying out the physical assault.

Situation No. 3

A. suddenly began assaulting the victim.

B., having witnessed what was happening, joined in and also began striking the victim.

There was no prior conspiracy.

This may potentially constitute an offence committed by a group of persons, since two perpetrators jointly participated in the commission of the act without prior conspiracy.

Situation No. 4

A. and B. agreed in advance to meet the victim and beat him.

At the designated location, both of them committed acts of violence.

This may constitute a group of persons acting by prior conspiracy.

4. What Must Be Proven to Qualify the Offence Specifically under Subparagraph 4) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code?

The prosecution must establish not merely the fact of a conflict, but a combination of circumstances.

4.1. Protected Legal Interest

The direct protected legal interest is the health and physical integrity of an individual.

At the same time, the following interests are also affected:

• human dignity;
• physical integrity;
• personal non-property rights.

The constitutional significance of protecting human dignity and the individual reinforces the need for a proper investigation of violent acts.

5. Objective Elements of the Offence

The objective elements consist of:

1. battery; or
2. the commission of other violent acts;
3. causing physical pain;
4. the absence of minor bodily harm;
5. where an aggravating element is present — the joint commission of the act by a group of persons.

The key distinction is:

Physical pain ≠ automatically minor bodily harm.

If forensic medical findings establish that minor bodily harm was caused, the matter must instead be considered with due regard to Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code, rather than Article 109-1.

The Supreme Court specifically provides explanations concerning the distinction between offences against life and health, including the application of Articles 108-1 and 109-1. (Adilet)

6. What Constitutes “Battery”?

From a legal perspective, battery cannot be reduced exclusively to the number of blows inflicted.

It may include:

• blows with the hands;
• kicks;
• slaps;
• pushing;
• blows with an object;
• other physical acts.

However, for Article 109-1 to apply, it must be established that physical pain was caused and that no minor bodily harm was inflicted.

For example:

a single powerful blow that causes physical pain, in the absence of minor bodily harm, may theoretically constitute an offence under Article 109-1.

Conversely:

numerous blows that do not cause established bodily harm may constitute battery if physical pain is proven.

7. Subjective Elements of the Offence

The offence is intentional.

It must be established that the person was aware of the nature of their actions and intended to engage in the relevant violent conduct or consciously accepted the possibility of its consequences.

In relation to the group offence, the following question is particularly important:

Was the joint use of violence covered by the intent of each participant?

8. Specific Features of the Subjective Elements in a Sudden Fight

This is one of the most complex practical issues.

For example:

A. initiated a conflict with the victim.

B. happened to be nearby.

After the first blow, B. unexpectedly joined in.

In such a case, the absence of prior conspiracy does not, in itself, prevent the conduct from being classified as an offence committed by a group of persons.

Article 31 of the Criminal Code expressly allows for a group of persons to act without prior conspiracy. (Law and Legal Services)

Therefore, the defence cannot limit itself to the argument:

“We did not agree in advance.”

It is necessary to establish whether joint commission of the offence actually took place.

9. Excess by an Accomplice

Article 30 of the Criminal Code is of significant importance in this context.

If one participant commits an act that was not covered by the intent of another participant, the issue of excess by an accomplice arises.

For example:

A. and B. agreed to push the victim and each deliver one blow.

A. unexpectedly takes out a metal object and inflicts additional blows on the victim.

The question of B.'s liability for A.'s actions must be resolved taking into account whether those actions were covered by B.'s intent.

The mere fact of being present does not automatically create liability for any subsequent act committed by another person.

10. A Group of Persons and Complicity Are Not the Same Thing

It is necessary to distinguish between:

Article 31 of the Criminal Code

characterises the commission of an offence by a group.

Article 28 of the Criminal Code

regulates the types of accomplices:

• perpetrator;
• organiser;
• instigator;
• accessory.

For the qualifying element of “a group of persons”, it is particularly important to establish the required number of perpetrators.

If one person directly delivers the blows, while the other merely provides transportation or helps conceal the offence afterwards, this does not automatically mean that there are two perpetrators.

11. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Criminal Cases Subject to the Jurisdiction of District and Equivalent Courts

As a general rule, district and equivalent courts are courts of first instance.

Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that criminal cases fall within their jurisdiction, except for cases assigned to the jurisdiction of specialised courts. (Law and Legal Services)

For the ordinary offence under Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the case generally falls within the jurisdiction of the relevant district/city/equivalent court of first instance.

12. Territorial Jurisdiction

The principal rule is:

the case is heard by the court at the place where the criminal offence was committed.

Where grounds предусмотрed by the Criminal Procedure Code exist, the matter may be resolved otherwise.

In practice, when reviewing the decision to refer a case to court, the following must be checked:

1. the place where the act was committed;
2. the place where the act was completed;
3. the place where the investigation was conducted;
4. whether there are multiple episodes;
5. whether there are multiple accused persons;
6. whether there is a minor accused person;
7. whether it is necessary to change territorial jurisdiction.

13. Competence

In this context, it is more appropriate to use the term criminal jurisdiction / court jurisdiction, since the matter concerns a criminal offence rather than a civil dispute between parties with equal rights.

The principal proceedings are as follows:

criminal proceedings → criminal prosecution authorities → court.

Civil claims for compensation for harm may be included in the criminal case.

14. Specific Feature of Part 2 of Article 109-1: It Is Not a Private Prosecution Case

This is a fundamental issue.

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes between private, private-public and public prosecution cases.

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Cases of Private, Private-Public and Public Prosecution and Accusation

Under Part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Part 1 of Article 109-1 falls within the category of private-public prosecution cases.

This means:

Part 1 of Article 109-1 — private-public prosecution.

However, Part 2 of Article 109-1 is not included in the list set out in Part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Accordingly:

Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code — a public prosecution case.

This is of considerable procedural importance. (Law and Legal Services)

15. Practical Significance of Public Prosecution

In cases under Part 2 of Article 109-1:

• criminal prosecution does not depend exclusively on the victim's wishes;
• the victim's withdrawal of their claims does not automatically terminate the case;
• the public prosecutor conducts the public prosecution;
• the victim retains their procedural rights;
• reconciliation is possible subject to compliance with the conditions of Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

This differs substantially from Part 1 of Article 109-1.

16. Pre-Trial Procedure

There is no mandatory “pre-trial claim procedure” in the civil-law sense in criminal proceedings.

The typical procedure is:

report of a criminal offence → registration in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI) → pre-trial investigation → procedural decision → referral of the case to the prosecutor → court.

The victim has the right to submit a report of a criminal offence and evidence.

17. Role of the Victim

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim

A person in respect of whom there are grounds to believe that moral, physical or property damage has been directly caused is recognised as a victim.

The victim has the right to:

• give testimony;
• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• have a representative;
• participate in court proceedings;
• file a civil claim;
• reconcile in cases provided for by law;
• appeal decisions;
• participate in appellate proceedings;
• support the prosecution in cases provided for by law. (Law and Legal Services)

18. Persons Participating in the Case

The following persons may participate in a typical case:

Prosecution side

1. prosecutor;
2. victim;
3. victim's representative;
4. civil claimant;
5. representative of the civil claimant.

Defence side

1. suspect;
2. accused;
3. defendant;
4. defence counsel;
5. legal representative — where applicable;
6. civil defendant;
7. representative of the civil defendant.

Other participants

• witness;
• expert;
• specialist;
• interpreter;
• mediator;
• court hearing secretary;
• court bailiff.

The Criminal Procedure Code expressly classifies the listed persons as participants in criminal proceedings. (Law and Legal Services)

19. Evidence

For the group offence, it is not sufficient to prove that:

“the victim was beaten by several people.”

It is necessary to establish the role of each person.

The main evidence includes:

1. Victim's Testimony

The following matters are particularly important:

• who delivered the first blow;
• who joined in;
• who restrained the victim;
• who delivered the blows;
• how many participants there were;
• where each person was located;
• what actions each person performed;
• whether there were any threats;
• what happened immediately before the conflict.

2. Testimony of Eyewitnesses

The testimony of independent witnesses is particularly valuable.

However, the court assesses:

• consistency of testimony;
• the existence of contradictions;
• any personal interest;
• the ability to perceive the events;
• lighting conditions;
• distance;
• duration of the conflict.

3. Video Recordings

In battery cases, video recordings may be of exceptional importance.

Sources include:

• CCTV cameras;
• dashcams;
• mobile phones;
• shop surveillance cameras;
• courtyard cameras;
• entrance cameras;
• security service recordings;
• social media.

A video recording may simultaneously establish:

1. the fact of violence;
2. the number of participants;
3. the sequence of actions;
4. the absence/presence of prior conspiracy;
5. the role of each person;
6. the moment when a person joined in;
7. the nature of the blows;
8. conduct following the conflict.

20. Forensic Medical Examination

For the distinction between:

Article 109-1 ↔ Article 108-1

medical evidence is of fundamental importance.

The Law “On Forensic Expert Activities” regulates the conduct of forensic examinations. (LawPravo Mail)

The Rules for the Organisation and Conduct of Forensic Examinations were approved by Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 27 April 2017. (Adilet)

An examination is conducted to establish factual data relevant to the resolution of the case, based on specialised scientific knowledge. (Adilet)

I can also prepare a legally polished English version using consistent terminology from common-law legal writing, while preserving the original meaning and structure.

21. What Is Important to Put to the Expert

The defence or the victim should not limit themselves to the question:

“What harm was caused to the health?”

It is necessary to formulate questions within the expert’s competence:

• whether bodily injuries are present;
• their nature;
• location;
• age;
• mechanism of formation;
• degree of severity of the harm caused to health;
• whether the injuries could have been sustained under the circumstances described by a participant in the proceedings.

At the same time, the expert must not decide a legal question:

“Did the accused commit a criminal offence?”

This falls within the competence of the court.

22. Assessment of Evidence

Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Assessment of Evidence

Each item of evidence is assessed in terms of:

• relevance;
• admissibility;
• reliability.

The body of evidence must be sufficient to resolve the criminal case. (Law and Legal Practice)

This is particularly important in conflict situations where:

the victim claims that three people beat him;

whereas:

the accused claim that only one person delivered a blow.

The court must not simply choose one version but must examine the entire body of evidence.

23. The Principle of Adversarial Proceedings

Article 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Administration of Justice on the Basis of Adversarial Proceedings and Equality of the Parties

The burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution.

The court:

• is not an authority of the prosecution;
• is not an authority of the defence;
• must maintain objectivity;
• ensures equal opportunities for the parties. (Law and Legal Practice)

24. A Typical Prosecution Error Regarding the Element of “Commission by a Group of Persons”

A very common problem:

the indictment states that the offence was “committed by a group of persons”, but the role of each accused person is not disclosed.

The following must be established in respect of each person:

• the specific act;
• the moment of participation;
• the direction of intent;
• the connection between that person’s actions and the joint act;
• participation in the objective elements of the offence.

The formula:

“A., B. and V. jointly struck the victim”

is insufficient in itself if it does not specify who acted, when and in what manner, particularly where the accusation is denied.

25. If One Person Only Held the Victim

This raises a complex issue of legal qualification.

For example:

A. delivers blows.

B. holds the victim’s hands.

If it is established that B. knowingly facilitated the direct commission of the violence, the provisions governing complicity must be analysed.

However, the qualifying element of “commission by a group of persons” under Article 31 of the Criminal Code is specifically associated with the joint participation of two or more perpetrators. (Law and Legal Practice)

Therefore, mechanically recognising any accessory as a second perpetrator is incorrect.

26. If One Participant Did Not Deliver a Single Blow

This does not automatically mean that criminal liability is excluded.

It is necessary to examine whether that person:

• organised the attack;
• induced others to commit it;
• assisted in its commission;
• held the victim;
• ensured the implementation of the common intent.

However, the legal qualification must correspond to the actual form of complicity.

27. Provocation of a Fight

Provocation in itself does not exclude liability.

However, in order to assess the subjective elements and circumstances of the incident, it is necessary to examine:

• who initiated the conflict;
• whether necessary defence was involved;
• whether the attack had ceased;
• whether the limits of necessary defence were exceeded;
• who first used violence;
• whether reciprocal blows were exchanged.

Where circumstances of necessary defence are present, the elements of a criminal offence may be entirely absent.

28. Necessary Defence

Not every retaliatory blow can automatically be classified as battery.

The provisions of the Criminal Code on necessary defence must be examined.

The fundamental sequence is:

attack → defence → nature of the threat → proportionality of the defensive actions → cessation of the attack.

If a person was attacked by several individuals, this becomes even more significant.

For example:

three persons attacked one individual, and the person subjected to the attack struck one of them in order to stop the attack.

The mere fact that pain was caused to the attacker does not in itself mean that an offence under Article 109-1 was committed.

29. Reconciliation

Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Release from Criminal Liability in Connection with Reconciliation

As a general rule, a person who has committed a criminal misdemeanour or a crime of minor or medium gravity not associated with death shall be released from criminal liability if that person:

1. reconciles with the victim;
2. including through mediation;
3. makes reparation for the harm caused. (Law and Legal Practice)

30. However, There Is a Special Restriction on Reconciliation under Article 109-1

Part 4 of Article 68 contains a special rule:

the provisions of this Article do not apply to a person who has committed a criminal offence provided for by Articles 108-1 and 109-1 within the limitation period after having previously been released from criminal liability for the relevant offence in connection with reconciliation between the parties. (Law and Legal Practice)

In other words, in order to apply reconciliation again under Article 109-1, previously terminated cases must be examined very carefully.

This is one of the most important practical considerations.

31. Reconciliation in Cases Involving Commission by a Group of Persons

The mere presence of the qualifying element:

“by a group of persons”

does not automatically make reconciliation impossible.

However, it is necessary to verify:

• the category of the criminal offence;
• whether there has been a previous release from criminal liability under Article 68;
• age;
• the status of the accused;
• whether the victim is a minor;
• the nature of the harm;
• the special exceptions set out in Part 4 of Article 68.

32. Mediation

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation” establishes the following principles:

• voluntariness;
• equality of the parties;
• independence and impartiality of the mediator;
• non-interference;
• confidentiality. (Law and Legal Practice)

A mediation agreement must be concluded in writing. (Law and Legal Practice)

However, a mediation agreement in itself does not replace a procedural decision in the criminal case.

The termination of criminal prosecution must be formalised in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements.

33. When Reconciliation May Be Particularly Problematic

For example:

A. was previously released from criminal liability under Article 109-1 in connection with reconciliation between the parties.

A short time later, A. commits a new offence under Article 109-1.

In such a case, it is necessary to apply the special restriction under Article 68 rather than rely solely on the general rule:

“The victim has forgiven the offender — therefore, the case must be terminated.”

34. Civil Claim in Criminal Proceedings

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings

The following claims may be considered in criminal proceedings:

• claims for property damage;
• claims for moral damage;
• expenses for medical treatment;
• expenses for legal representation;
• other expenses directly related to the criminal offence. (Law and Legal Practice)

35. When a Civil Claim May Be Filed

Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a civil claim to be filed:

from the commencement of pre-trial investigation until the end of the judicial investigation. (Law and Legal Practice)

This means that the victim is not required to wait until the criminal case has been completed.

36. State Duty for a Civil Claim in Criminal Proceedings

A very important practical rule:

a civil claimant is exempt from paying state duty when filing a civil claim in criminal proceedings.

This is expressly established by Part 3 of Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Law and Legal Practice)

37. If Moral Damage Is Claimed Through a Separate Civil Action

If the victim did not file a civil claim in the criminal proceedings or the claim was left without consideration, the victim has the right, in the cases provided for by law, to bring the relevant claim under civil procedure.

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides for such a possibility in respect of moral damage. (Law and Legal Practice)

When bringing a separate civil claim, the rules of the new Tax Code must be applied.

The Tax Code dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, has been in force since 2026.

Article 665 establishes a rate of 0.5 MCI for non-property claims. (Law and Legal Practice)

With the MCI set at KZT 4,325, this amounts to:

KZT 2,162.50.

However, the actual payment amount must be determined taking into account the technical requirements of the court payment system and the applicable rounding procedure.

38. Limitation Period for Claims for Moral Damage

This is one of the most interesting issues.

Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that the limitation period does not apply to:

1. claims for the protection of intangible benefits and personal non-property rights;
2. claims for compensation for harm caused to life and health, subject to the statutory limitation concerning the period for which the claim may be satisfied. (Law and Legal Practice)

Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated 27 November 2015 expressly states that the limitation period does not apply to claims for compensation for moral damage, except for the exceptions provided for by law. (Law and Legal Practice)

39. Restoration of the Limitation Period

An important distinction must be made here.

In relation to moral damage

as a rule, the issue of restoring the limitation period does not arise at all, since the limitation period does not apply.

In relation to claims subject to a limitation period

Article 185 of the Civil Code applies.

The court may restore the limitation period in exceptional cases if the reason for missing it is connected with the claimant’s personal circumstances, for example:

• serious illness;
• helpless condition;
• illiteracy;
• other similar circumstances.

In this regard, the relevant circumstances must have occurred during the last six months of the limitation period, provided that the general limitation period exceeds six months. (Law and Legal Practice)

40. Judicial Practice Regarding Restoration of the Limitation Period

The court’s approach must be strict.

The following circumstances, in themselves:

• lack of knowledge of the law;
• being busy;
• unwillingness to apply to court;
• a conflict with a lawyer;
• lack of funds to pay for legal representation

should not automatically be regarded as valid reasons.

The following circumstances, supported by documentary evidence, carry considerably greater weight:

• hospitalisation;
• serious illness;
• a condition that objectively prevented the filing of a claim;
• a helpless condition;
• inability to understand the need to apply to court.

41. However, a Different Limitation Period Applies to Criminal Prosecution

The following must not be confused:

the limitation period for a civil claim

and

the limitation period for bringing a person to criminal liability.

These are entirely different legal institutions.

42. Limitation Period for a Criminal Offence

Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Release from Criminal Liability Due to the Expiry of the Limitation Period

Article 71 provides for the following periods:

• 1 year — for a criminal misdemeanour;
• 2 years — for crimes of minor gravity;
• 5 years — for crimes of medium gravity;
• 10 years — for grave crimes;
• 15 years — for especially grave crimes. (Law and Legal Practice)

However, in order to determine the specific limitation period under Part 2 of Article 109-1, it is necessary to establish the category of the criminal offence in accordance with Article 11 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the maximum penalty.

This must be done by reference to the version of the law in force at the time the act was committed.

43. Principle of the Temporal Application of Criminal Law

In every case, it is necessary to establish:

• the date on which the offence was committed;
• the version of Article 109-1 in force on that date;
• the date on which the relevant version entered into force;
• subsequent amendments;
• whether a more lenient law exists.

Law No. 72-VIII has a specific effective date — 16 June 2024. The Supreme Court specifically addressed this issue in its regulatory resolution on the qualification of criminal offences against life and health. (Adilet)

44. Procedural Coercive Measures

Various procedural coercive measures may be applied in cases involving battery.

In particular:

• compulsory appearance;
• monetary penalties;
• preventive measures;
• an undertaking to appear;
• other measures provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

45. Compulsory Appearance

Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Appearance

In the event of failure to appear without a valid reason, a suspect, accused person, defendant, witness or victim may be subjected to compulsory appearance.

Valid reasons may include:

• illness;
• death of a close relative;
• natural disaster;
• other objective circumstances. (Law and Legal Practice)

Compulsory appearance may not be carried out at night.

46. Monetary Penalty

Article 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the imposition of a monetary penalty for failure to perform procedural obligations. (Law and Legal Practice)

Under Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the relevant cases, the amount of the penalty may reach 50 MCI. (Law and Legal Practice)

Based on the 2026 MCI, this may amount to:

KZT 216,250.

47. Preventive Measures

When selecting a preventive measure, the court and the criminal prosecution authority must take into account the grounds provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

In a case involving battery, the mere statement that:

“the crime was committed by a group of persons”

does not automatically mean that detention is necessary.

Specific risks and circumstances must be assessed:

• the possibility of absconding;
• obstruction of the investigation;
• exerting influence on the victim or witnesses;
• continuation of unlawful activities;
• personal circumstances of the accused;
• other circumstances.

48. Measures to Ensure the Safety of the Victim

In cases involving group violence, ensuring the victim’s safety is particularly relevant.

The victim has the right to apply for protective measures, including, in cases provided for by law, measures concerning the suspect that involve restrictions on approaching the victim. (Law and Legal Practice)

49. Supreme Court: Key Applicable Positions

The most important regulatory act is the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan:

“On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health.”

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Qualification of Criminal Offences Against Life and Health

In particular, the Supreme Court emphasises the need to correctly distinguish between criminal offences against health.

Of particular importance is the provision stating that battery and minor bodily harm may be covered by the offence of torture where the relevant elements are present and, in such cases, do not require additional qualification under Articles 108-1 or 109-1. (Adilet)

50. Practical Significance of the Supreme Court’s Regulatory Resolution

When investigating a group assault, it is necessary to rule out situations in which the actual circumstances indicate:

• systematic violence;
• torture;
• more serious harm to health;
• hooligan motives;
• other independent criminal offences.

 51. Court of First Instance: Subject Matter of Examination

The main issues before the court of first instance will be:

1.

Did acts of violence take place?

2.

Did they cause physical pain?

3.

Was minor harm to health caused?

4.

Who exactly committed the violent acts?

5.

Were there two or more perpetrators?

6.

Did they act jointly?

7.

Was there a prior agreement (prior conspiracy)?

8.

What was the form of guilt of each person?

9.

Was there no case of necessary self-defence?

10.

Is there no other corpus delicti?

52. Appellate Instance

The following errors are of particular importance on appeal:

• incorrect assessment of evidence;
• failure to analyse the role of each accused person;
• unjustified recognition of the offence as having been committed by a group;
• absence of evidence of physical pain;
• incorrect assessment of medical documents;
• incorrect classification of the degree of harm;
• violation of the right to defence;
• unlawful exclusion of evidence;
• violation of the rules governing the consideration of a civil claim;
• unjustified refusal to terminate the case in connection with reconciliation.

53. Typical Appellate Scenario No. 1

The court of first instance established that:

A. and B. jointly beat the victim.

However, the judgment does not contain:

• a description of A.'s actions;
• a description of B.'s actions;
• evidence of their joint participation;
• an analysis of who exactly caused the physical pain.

On appeal, this may become a significant subject of review when assessing the validity of the court's conclusions.

54. Typical Appellate Scenario No. 2

The court recognised the existence of a group solely because:

the accused persons were together.

Such a conclusion, in itself, is insufficient.

It is necessary to prove specifically joint participation.

55. Typical Appellate Scenario No. 3

The court established that:

A. struck the victim.

B. was standing nearby.

At the same time, B. was recognised as the second perpetrator without evidence of his active participation.

This raises a serious issue concerning the qualifying element of commission of the offence by a group of persons.

56. Typical Appellate Scenario No. 4

The court established that:

A. and B. had agreed in advance to beat the victim.

However, there is no evidence of a prior agreement.

In such a case, it is necessary to distinguish between:

• the absence of a prior agreement;
• the existence of a group of persons acting without a prior agreement.

Thus, the absence of evidence of a prior agreement does not necessarily eliminate qualification under subparagraph 4).

The following qualification may remain:

a group of persons.

57. Distinguishing Between a “Group of Persons” and “Prior Agreement”

This is an important formula for an advocate's position.

If the following is proven:

A. and B. simultaneously beat the victim.

→ A group of persons may be established.

If the following is proven:

A. and B. agreed in advance and then jointly beat the victim.

→ A group of persons acting by prior agreement.

If the following is proven:

A. beat the victim, while B. arrived later and merely observed.

→ The existence of a group requires additional proof.

58. The Issue of a Unified Intent

For a group offence, not only physical contact but also the mental attitude towards the jointly committed act is important.

For example:

B. saw A. delivering blows and unexpectedly struck the victim himself.

If it is proven that B. consciously joined in the acts of violence, qualification as an offence committed by a group of persons may be possible.

59. What Is Not Mandatory for a Group Offence

The following are not required:

• a prior written agreement;
• lengthy planning;
• a permanent criminal group;
• prior allocation of roles;
• the existence of a leader.

A group of persons under Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan may arise directly during a conflict. (Law and Legal Practice)

60. What Is Mandatory

The following must be proven:

two or more perpetrators + joint participation in a specific criminal offence.

61. Judicial Practice on Moral Damages

There is considerably more developed Supreme Court practice in this area.

Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 27 November 2015, “On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Harm”

The Supreme Court classifies as physical suffering the physical pain experienced in connection with violence or the infliction of harm to health. (Law and Legal Practice)

This is directly relevant to battery cases.

62. Amount of Moral Damages

The law does not establish a universal tariff:

one blow = X tenge;

two blows = Y tenge.

The court assesses:

• the nature of the violation;
• the degree of physical suffering;
• emotional and psychological suffering;
• consequences;
• the form of guilt;
• the circumstances of the incident;
• other circumstances deserving consideration.

The Supreme Court refers to the criteria of reasonableness and fairness. (LawPravo Mail)

63. In Cases of Harm Caused by a Group

The issue of the liability of several persons who caused harm is of particular importance.

The Supreme Court's practice recognises the possibility of claiming compensation where moral harm has been caused jointly, taking into account the rules of civil liability. The Regulatory Resolution draws attention to the need to determine in the judicial act the type of liability of each responsible person. (LawPravo Mail)

Therefore, in a civil claim, it is important to correctly determine:

• whom to bring in as a defendant;
• in what amount;
• what type of liability should be applied.

64. International Standards

International standards for the protection of the individual are applicable to the case.

Kazakhstan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Law No. 91 dated 28 November 2005. (Law and Legal Practice)

In particular, the following provisions are relevant:

Article 7 of the ICCPR

Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 9

The right to personal security.

Article 14

The right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court expressly indicates that, where necessary, courts must be guided by the provisions of the ICCPR in order to fulfil Kazakhstan's international obligations. (Law and Legal Practice)

65. Convention Against Torture

Kazakhstan acceded to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (LawPravo Mail)

In the case of ordinary domestic assault, Article 109-1 should not automatically be reclassified as “torture”.

Torture requires specific legal elements established by international law and national legislation.

However, the general international standard prohibiting cruel treatment is relevant to understanding the State's obligation to ensure effective protection of the individual.

66. If the Victim Is a Minor

Additional safeguards apply:

• legislation on the rights of the child;
• special provisions of the Criminal Code;
• the Criminal Procedure Code;
• Kazakhstan's international obligations.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by Kazakhstan. (Law and Legal Practice)

If, however, the minor is the accused person, the special rules of juvenile criminal proceedings apply.

67. Main Regulatory Legal Acts

For comprehensive handling of the case, the following body of regulatory legal acts should be compiled.

Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan

First and foremost:

• the right to judicial protection;
• human dignity;
• personal inviolability;
• guarantees of justice.

Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Key provisions:

• Article 3 — basic concepts;
• Article 11 — categories of criminal offences;
• Article 28 — types of accomplices;
• Article 30 — excess of an accomplice;
• Article 31 — group of persons;
• Article 68 — reconciliation;
• Article 71 — limitation periods;
• Article 108-1 — minor harm to health;
• Article 109-1 — battery;
• Article 110 — torture;
• provisions on necessary self-defence;
• provisions on sentencing.

68. Criminal Procedure Code

Key articles:

• Article 7 — concepts;
• Article 23 — adversarial proceedings;
• Article 32 — types of prosecution;
• Article 35 — termination of proceedings;
• Article 36 — exemption from criminal liability;
• Article 71 — victim;
• provisions concerning suspects and accused persons;
• Article 125 — assessment of evidence;
• Article 157 — compulsory appearance;
• Articles 159–160 — monetary penalties;
• Article 166 — civil claim;
• Article 167 — filing of a civil claim;
• Article 306 — jurisdiction;
• provisions governing appellate proceedings.

69. Civil Code

In particular:

• Article 9 — methods of protecting civil rights;
• Article 917 — general grounds for liability for causing harm;
• Article 951 — concept of moral harm;
• Article 952 — compensation for moral harm;
• Article 178 — general limitation period;
• Article 185 — restoration of the limitation period;
• Article 187 — claims to which the limitation period does not apply.

Article 187 is of particular importance for claims concerning the protection of personal non-property rights and compensation for moral harm. (Law and Legal Practice)

70. Tax Code of 2026

Since the new Tax Code dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, has been in force since 1 January 2026, its provisions must now be used when determining state duty.

Key provisions:

• Article 664 — objects subject to state duty;
• Article 665 — state duty rates;
• Article 668 — exemption from state duty.

Article 665 establishes a state duty of 0.5 MCI for claims of a non-property nature. (Law and Legal Practice)

71. Law “On Mediation”

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 28 January 2011, No. 401-IV.

Key provisions:

• Article 3 — objectives;
• Article 4 — principles;
• Article 17 — procedure for conducting mediation;
• Article 21 — mediation agreement;
• Article 27 — agreement on settlement of the dispute.

Mediation is based on the principles of voluntariness and equality of the parties. (Law and Legal Practice)

72. Law “On Forensic Expert Activities”

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 February 2017, No. 44-VI.

The following are particularly important:

• independence of the expert;
• objectivity;
• scientific validity;
• requirements for the expert report;
• procedure for conducting an expert examination.

The Law was also updated in 2026; therefore, when appointing an expert examination, the current version must be used. (Law and Legal Practice)

73. Subordinate Regulatory Legal Acts

The following may be relevant to the case:

1. Rules for the organisation and conduct of forensic examinations and studies;
2. rules for handling forensic examination objects;
3. departmental acts of forensic examination bodies;
4. medical standards and rules governing the preparation of medical documentation;
5. procedural orders of the Prosecutor General's Office;
6. departmental acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs concerning the registration of reports and the conduct of relevant procedural actions;
7. regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court.

Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice dated 27 April 2017 is of particular importance. (Adilet)

74. Regulatory Resolutions of the Supreme Court

The following are particularly useful in this case:

1. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court “On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against the Life and Health of a Person”

For distinguishing between:

• battery;
• minor harm to health;
• torture;
• other crimes against health. (Adilet)

2. Regulatory Resolution No. 7 dated 27 November 2015

On moral harm. (Law and Legal Practice)

3. Regulatory Resolution on the Application of International Treaties

For the application of the ICCPR and other international provisions. (Law and Legal Practice)

4. Regulatory Clarifications on Court Costs

Applicable primarily when filing a separate civil claim.

75. Practical Algorithm for the Victim

If an advocate represents the victim, the optimal sequence of actions is as follows:

Step 1

Immediately file a report of the criminal offence.

Step 2

Obtain medical documentation.

Step 3

Secure the appointment of a forensic medical examination.

Step 4

Preserve video recordings.

Step 5

Identify all eyewitnesses.

Step 6

Identify each participant.

Step 7

Secure recognition as a victim.

Step 8

Submit motions requesting investigative actions.

Step 9

If necessary, file a civil claim.

Step 10

Assess the possibility of reconciliation.

76. Motions of the Victim

In practical terms, it is advisable to submit motions:

• requesting the retrieval of video recordings;
• requesting the examination of specific witnesses;
• requesting a forensic medical examination;
• requesting an additional expert examination;
• requesting an inspection of the scene;
• requesting an examination of the telephone;
• requesting the identification of the participants;
• requesting recognition as a civil claimant;
• requesting the application of security measures.

77. Practical Defence Algorithm

The defence must first and foremost examine the elements of the criminal offence.

Block No. 1 — Existence of the Event

Did the acts of violence actually take place?

Block No. 2 — Physical Pain

Is there evidence of physical pain?

Block No. 3 — Harm to Health

Has minor harm been established?

Block No. 4 — Group

Who exactly is the second perpetrator?

Block No. 5 — Joint Participation

Did the persons act jointly?

Block No. 6 — Intent

Was there a common intent?

Block No. 7 — Excess of an Accomplice

Did one participant commit acts that were not covered by the intent of the other participant?

Block No. 8 — Necessary Self-Defence

Was the accused actually the person acting in self-defence?

Block No. 9 — Alternative Qualification

Is there another criminal offence?

Block No. 10 — Termination

Is it possible to apply Article 68 of the Criminal Code?

78. Particularly Important Line of Defence: Absence of a Second Perpetrator

When qualifying an offence under subparagraph 4) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this may be one of the central issues.

For example:

“The case materials confirm that B. was present at the scene of the incident; however, they do not confirm that B. committed acts constituting the objective elements of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code or jointly perpetrated the act.”

This is much stronger than simply stating:

“B. is not guilty.”

It is necessary to challenge the specific qualifying element.

79. Second Line of Defence: Absence of Joint Participation

The following may be established:

• A. initiated the conflict;
• B. intervened later;
• B. attempted to stop the conflict;
• B. separated the participants;
• B. did not deliver any blows.

In such a case, it is necessary to distinguish physical presence from joint perpetration.

80. Third Line of Defence: Absence of Intent to Commit Joint Violence

Even if a person performed a certain physical action, it is necessary to establish its subjective purpose and direction.

For example:

B. was separating the persons involved in the fight.

At that moment, A. continued delivering blows.

If the investigation qualifies B. as the second perpetrator, the entire context must be examined.

81. Fourth Line of Defence: Incorrect Medical Classification

If bodily injuries are present, the following must be examined:

• the date of the medical examination;
• the accuracy of the description;
• the age of the injuries;
• the mechanism of their infliction;
• the consistency of the medical data with the testimony;
• the expert's conclusion regarding the degree of harm to health.

If minor harm to health is established, classification under Article 109-1 may be legally incorrect.

82. Fifth Line of Defence: Article 110 of the Criminal Code

If the violence was systematic, prolonged, and accompanied by the infliction of physical or mental suffering, the elements of torture (cruel treatment) must be examined.

The Supreme Court expressly clarifies that, in appropriate circumstances, battery may be encompassed by the offence of torture, and no additional classification under Articles 108-1 or 109-1 is required. (Adilet)

83. First-Instance Court Practice — Generalised Approach

Although no published court decisions specifically concerning subparagraph 4) of part 2 of Article 109-1 have been identified in the available search results, the logic of judicial examination should be structured as follows:

act of violence → physical pain → absence of minor harm to health → identification of participants → joint participation → guilt → qualifying element.

Judicial analysis must not begin with the following conclusion:

"Three defendants — therefore, a group."

The facts must first be established, followed by their legal classification.

84. Appellate Practice — Key Points for Review

The appellate court must examine:

• legality;
• substantiation;
• adequacy of reasoning;
• correctness of the legal classification;
• completeness of the examination of evidence;
• observance of the rights of participants in the proceedings;
• correctness of the determination of the civil claim;
• appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Particular importance is attached to contradictions between the reasoning section of the judgment and the actual evidence.

85. Supreme Court — The Significance of Regulatory Resolutions

Regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court are a particularly important instrument for ensuring uniform application of legislation.

The constitutional framework of the judicial system presupposes compliance with the law in force and uniform application of legislation.

Therefore, in a cassation/appeal complaint, it is advisable for defence counsel to refer not only to the text of Article 109-1, but also to:

• Article 31 of the Criminal Code;
• the relevant regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court;
• Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
• Article 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
• provisions governing the admissibility of evidence;
• international treaties.

86. Table Distinguishing the Offences

87. Fundamental Error: Confusing a "Group of Persons" with a "Criminal Group"

These are entirely different concepts.

A group of persons:

• at least two perpetrators;
• joint commission of the offence;
• may arise spontaneously.

A criminal group:

• an organised group;
• a criminal organisation;
• a criminal community;
• other forms предусмотренные by the Criminal Code.

For the ordinary form of the offence under part 2 of Article 109-1, the first construction is sufficient.

88. State Duty — Summary Table

Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly exempts a civil claimant in criminal proceedings from payment of the state duty. (Zakon i Pravo)

Article 665 of the new Tax Code establishes a rate of 0.5 MCI for the relevant claims of a non-property nature. (Zakon i Pravo)

89. Time Limits — Summary Table

90. International Legal Framework Table

Kazakhstan is a party to the ICCPR and the relevant international treaties; the Supreme Court expressly indicates the need to apply international treaties where appropriate. (Zakon i Pravo)

91. Main Practical Conclusion Regarding Legal Classification

For the classification of an offence as:

"Battery committed by a group of persons"

the following must be established:

1. the fact of violent acts;

2. the infliction of physical pain;

3. the absence of minor harm to health;

4. at least two perpetrators;

5. joint participation;

6. the intentional nature of the conduct;

7. the connection between each person's actions and the common criminal result;

8. the absence of circumstances excluding the criminality of the act;

9. the absence of the elements of a more serious criminal offence.

92. Key Procedural Conclusion

The following is particularly important:

Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not fall within the category of cases of private-public prosecution under part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code; it falls within the category of public prosecution.

Consequently, the victim's position is of great importance, but it is not the sole factor determining the continuation of criminal prosecution. The list of private-public prosecution offences in part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code includes only part 1 of Article 109-1. (Zakon i Pravo)

93. Key Conclusion Regarding Reconciliation

Reconciliation is possible not merely because the victim has written:

"I have no claims."

The legal conditions set out in Article 68 of the Criminal Code must be established:

1. the permissible category of the offence;
2. reconciliation;
3. making amends for the harm caused;
4. the absence of special exceptions;
5. the absence of an impediment related to previous release from criminal liability under Articles 108-1/109-1.

(Zakon i Pravo)

94. Key Conclusion Regarding the Civil Claim

If the victim wishes to recover:

• compensation for moral damage;
• medical treatment expenses;
• the cost of medicines;
• transport expenses;
• legal representation expenses;
• other damage directly caused,

it is advisable to consider filing a civil claim within the criminal proceedings, since Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

• permits such a claim to be filed before the conclusion of the judicial investigation;
• exempts the civil claimant from payment of the state duty;
• allows the claim to be considered together with the criminal case. (Zakon i Pravo)

95. Key Conclusion Regarding Time Limits

Three time limits must be fundamentally distinguished:

1. The limitation period for criminal liability

Article 71 of the Criminal Code.

2. The civil limitation period

Article 178 of the Civil Code.

3. The time limit for filing a civil claim directly within criminal proceedings

Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code — before the conclusion of the judicial investigation. (Zakon i Pravo)

These time limits must not be confused.

96. Consolidated Legal Model of the Case

For the purposes of legal analysis of a specific case, I would structure the legal matrix as follows:

I. The Incident

→ Did physical contact or force occur?

II. Consequence

→ Was physical pain caused?

III. Medical Classification

→ Was minor harm to health absent?

IV. Participants

→ Who was present?

V. Perpetrators

→ Who directly carried out the objective elements of the offence?

VI. Joint Action

→ Did they act jointly?

VII. Conspiracy

→ Was there a prior agreement?

VIII. Intent

→ Were the actions of each person covered by a common intent?

IX. Excess by a Perpetrator

→ Did anyone exceed the limits of the common intent?

X. Defence

→ Was the conduct a defensive response?

XI. Alternative Classification

→ Article 108-1? Article 110? Another offence?

XII. Procedure

→ Was the case properly registered and investigated?

XIII. Evidence

→ Is the evidence admissible?

XIV. Victim

→ Were the victim's rights observed?

XV. Civil Claim

→ Pecuniary + moral damage?

XVI. Reconciliation

→ Is Article 68 applicable?

XVII. Punishment

→ Were the principles of individualisation and the general principles of sentencing observed?

97. Recommended Collection of Links to zakonpravo.kz

For practical work on the case, it is useful to keep the following materials readily available:

• Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — "Battery";
• Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Group Commission of a Criminal Offence;
• Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Reconciliation;
• Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Period for Criminal Liability;
• Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Types of Prosecution;
• Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim;
• Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Assessment of Evidence;
• Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Appearance;
• Articles 159–160 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Monetary Penalties;
• Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings;
• Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Filing a Civil Claim;
• Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Jurisdiction of Criminal Cases;
• Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Periods;
• Article 185 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Restoration of the Limitation Period;
• Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Claims Not Subject to Limitation Periods;
• Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court on the Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Damage;
• Article 665 of the New Tax Code — State Duty Rates in Courts;
• Law "On Mediation";
• Law "On Forensic Expert Activity";
• Rules for the Organisation and Conduct of Forensic Examinations;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on the Classification of Criminal Offences Against Life and Health;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on the Application of International Treaties.

Final Legal Formula

Subparagraph 4) of part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan applies where it is proven that battery or other violent acts causing physical pain without inflicting minor harm to health were committed jointly by two or more perpetrators.

In this regard:

the absence of a prior agreement does not preclude classification as an offence committed "by a group of persons";

the presence of several persons at the scene of the incident does not, in itself, prove the existence of a group;

the specific participation and intent of each participant must be established;

part 2 of Article 109-1 falls within public prosecution, since part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code classifies specifically part 1 of Article 109-1 as an offence subject to private-public prosecution; (Zakon i Pravo)

a civil claim for pecuniary and moral damage may be filed directly within the criminal proceedings before the conclusion of the judicial investigation, without payment of the state duty; (Zakon i Pravo)

the limitation period generally does not apply to claims for compensation for moral damage; (Zakon i Pravo)

the principal evidentiary issue in establishing the group element is proving not merely the presence of several persons, but the joint commission of the criminal offence by each of them.

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. 

Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Statement Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Norms Note Rules Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Messages