The prosecution should be based on verified evidence, not on assumptions, and the right to compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of the authorities conducting the criminal process.
By the verdict of the Sandyktau district Court of the Akmola region dated June 22, 2012: Sh., - sentenced under part 1 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code to a fine of 100 MCI, in the amount of 161,800 tenge. By the same verdict, K. was acquitted under part 1 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code for the absence of corpus delicti in his actions. The verdict was upheld by the decisions of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of August 22, 2012 and the Cassation Judicial Board of the Akmola Regional Court of December 20, 2012. By the verdict of the court of S. She was found guilty of defamation, which was expressed in the dissemination of deliberately false information discrediting the honor and dignity of K. and undermining his reputation. Having considered the case at the request of the convicted Sh., the supervisory judicial board for criminal cases concluded that judicial acts are subject to cancellation with the termination of the proceedings on the following grounds. In accordance with the requirements of article 77 of the Constitution and article 19 of the CPC, no one is required to prove his innocence, irremediable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in his favor, and a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions. These constitutional requirements have not been met in this case. The court did not interpret the existing doubts in favor of the defense and decided the verdict only on the basis of the testimony of the prosecution. In her appeal to the Presidium of the Bar Association of the Akmola region, the convicted Sh. She asked to hold lawyers G. and K. accountable. for illegal actions against her. In the court session, Sh. She explained that on that day, K.'s lawyer and his assistant G. stopped her at the courthouse. K. demanded that she pay him 300,000 tenge in the civil case of R., whose interests he represented, while threatening her with his connections. K.'s demands were unlawful.
The prosecution should be based on verified evidence, not on assumptions, and the right to compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of the authorities conducting the criminal process.
In this regard, she appealed to the bar association to give his actions an appropriate assessment. The private prosecutor, K., denied any conversation with Sh. and demands payment of money, believes that she slandered him. When considering this criminal case, the court, taking into account the testimony of witness G. that on that day K., after leaving the courthouse, immediately got into his car and did not meet anyone, recognized K.'s statements as more truthful than Sh.'s arguments, and came to the dubious conclusion that there was no actual meeting between Sh. and K. near the courthouse after the civil trial. At the same time, the testimony of witness Z. was rejected by the court without sufficient grounds. that she saw (two) men standing next to Sh. 2 near the courthouse, one of them K., who spoke about the amount of 300,000 tenge. In such circumstances, the court, in violation of the Criminal procedure law, considered this criminal case by analogy with the civil case for the protection of honor and dignity on the basis of the principles of civil procedure, effectively obliging the accused Sh. to prove his innocence. At the same time, in the case, the private prosecutor did not actually provide, as required by the criminal procedure law, indisputable evidence that Sh. She sent a deliberately false appeal to the bar association and slandered him. Thus, in this case, the verdict of guilty against Sh. It is illegal and is subject to cancellation due to the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the convicted person. The petition of S. in the part where it is indicated that K.'s actions constitute a crime provided for in part 1 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code, it is unfounded and must be left without satisfaction. Based on the above, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court issued a verdict of the Sandyktau District Court of the Akmola region, a decision of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Akmola Regional Court against Sh. She canceled the criminal case and terminated the proceedings due to the lack of corpus delicti in her actions. Recognized for Sh. the right to compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of bodies conducting criminal proceedings. The acquittal against K. remained unchanged.
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
