.png)
Innocent Infliction of Harm
📘 Article 23 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Innocent Infliction of Harm
🔹1. Legal Nature of the Article
Article 23 of the Criminal Code establishes a fundamental principle of criminal law — liability arises only in the presence of guilt. This provision implements the principle of subjective imputation, according to which punishment is possible only when a person’s guilt has been proven, either in the form of intent or negligence.
🔔 Principle: Nulla poena sine culpa (No punishment without guilt).
This rule excludes objective imputation, under which a person would be held liable merely for the fact of causing harm, without analyzing their mental attitude toward the consequences.
🔹2. Structure of Article 23 of the Criminal Code
📌 Part 1. Formal Indicator of Innocence
If an act (or omission) and its consequences were not covered by intent, and negligence is not provided for by law — the person bears no liability.
🔹 Example: Criminal law provides for liability only for intentional destruction of property (Article 202 of the CC). If a person negligently burns someone else’s property, and negligence is not covered by the article, liability is excluded.
🔹 Analogy: The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan has repeatedly stated that the absence of direct or indirect guilt excludes criminal liability, even if the consequences were grave (see Review of Judicial Practice for 2021).
📌 Part 2. Factual Indicator of Innocence (Psychological Analysis)
A person is innocent if they did not and could not realize the social danger of their actions, or did not and should not have foreseen the consequences.
🔍 Two groups of conditions are important here:
🔸 A. Objective Innocence:· The person did not foresee the consequences;· Was not obliged to and could not have foreseen them (i.e., the duty to foresee is excluded).
📍 Example: A pedestrian suddenly runs onto the road. The driver complies with traffic rules, does not exceed speed limits, reacts promptly — but a collision still occurs.➡ No guilt → No criminal liability.
🔸 B. Subjective Innocence under Permissible Risk:· The person foresaw possible consequences;· Hoped to prevent them;· Had sufficient grounds to expect prevention.
📍 Example: A surgeon performs an operation in accordance with standards. An unpredictable complication arises despite all measures taken.➡ The person reasonably relied on prevention — guilt is excluded.
🔸 C. Physiological Inconsistency (Extreme Conditions):· The person could not prevent the consequences due to psychophysiological limitations, lack of preparedness, stress, panic, etc.
📍 Example: A rescuer, in an extreme evacuation situation, fails to maintain control, resulting in a fatality.➡ The court may recognize the behavior as a reaction to overload and exclude guilt.
🔹3. Principles Underlying Article 23
· Subjective imputation (Article 19 CC);· Presumption of innocence (Article 77 of the Constitution, Article 14 CPC);· Inadmissibility of liability without guilt (Article 23 CC, Article 923 Civil Code).
🔹4. Normative Resolutions of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan
📜 Normative Resolution No. 1 of March 11, 2016“On the Practice of Application by Courts of Criminal Legislation in Cases of Crimes Committed by Negligence”
➡ States that:· The person’s attitude toward the consequences must be established;· In the absence of guilt, liability is excluded;· If a person acted under justified risk, they are not subject to criminal liability (by analogy with Article 24 CC — justified risk).
📜 Normative Resolution No. 2 of December 25, 2020“On the Qualification of Crimes Against Life and Health”
➡ Emphasizes the need to:· Distinguish between negligence and innocent behavior;· Involve experts to assess the reasonableness of conduct (medicine, technology, transport, etc.).
🔹5. Related Provisions of Other Codes
| Code | Article | Content |
|---|---|---|
| CPC | 113 | Obligation to prove guilt |
| CPC | 124-125 | Evaluation of testimony and evidence based on internal conviction |
| Civil Code | 923 | Harm caused without guilt is not subject to compensation |
| Administrative Code | 6 | Administrative liability arises only in the presence of guilt |
🔹6. Judicial Precedents (Review)
- Case of an Anesthesiologist (Nur-Sultan, 2022)The doctor was accused of causing a patient’s death. The court established: anaphylactic shock was unforeseeable, protocol was observed, standard dosages were applied.➡ Recognized as innocent — Article 23 CC.
- Road Accident Case (Kostanay, 2021)The driver drove in fog in compliance with rules. A pedestrian crossed the road outside a crosswalk.➡ Court: no guilt, actions corresponded to the situation → release from liability.
🧾 Conclusion
Article 23 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan plays a key role in the system of criminal law:
✅ It:· Ensures justice;· Excludes punishment for unforeseeable consequences;· Protects individuals who acted in good faith but faced unforeseen situations.
⚖️ Law enforcement (investigator, prosecutor, court) must prove guilt, not merely the fact of harm caused.
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
