When imposing a suspended sentence, the court limited itself only to circumstances mitigating the criminal liability and punishment of convicted persons and did not fully take into account the degree of danger of the criminal offense to society, as well as the opinion of the victim on the imposition of punishment

By the verdict of the Syrdarya District Court of Kyzylorda region dated June 29, 2016, he was found guilty by Paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code E. and ZH. and sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment.  Convicted persons E. and ZH.were jointly charged with court costs in the amount of 8,755 tenge in favor of the state. The problem of physical evidence has been resolved. By the verdict of the court, E. and J. were found guilty of too gross violation of public order, combined with the use of firearms by a group of people, in which there was clearly visible disrespect for public order, the use of force on citizens. By the decision of the Judicial Board of the Kyzylorda Regional Court on criminal cases dated August 09, 2016, the court's verdict was left unchanged. The court's verdict was changed on the basis of the following circumstances. In the case specified in the descriptive and motivational part of the sentence in respect of convicted persons E. and ZH., the court's conclusions about the substantiation of guilt in committing a criminal offense are based on evidence objectively studied at the court session and given an appropriate assessment, therefore it is not challenged in the petition.

The criminal actions of the convicted persons E. and ZH. were fully substantiated by the testimony of the victims H. and B. on the circumstances of the criminal offense committed against them, conducting an inspection of the scene, presenting a person for recognition by photo, face-to-face, clarifying the evidence by showing the person at the scene of the incident, protocols for recognition of the person, expert opinions and other case documents studied in court. The fact of infliction of minor injuries to Victim B., and minor injuries to victim H. of medium and mild degrees, including with the use of a knife, is confirmed by the conclusions of forensic medical examinations No. 1510 and 158 conducted in relation to them. The court correctly differentiated the actions of E. and ZH. by Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 293 of the criminal code. However, the arguments of victim X to disagree with the sentencing part of the court verdict against convicted persons E. and ZH. are justified. In accordance with the provisions of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4" on some issues of imposing criminal penalties", courts should take into account the nature and degree of danger to society of the committed criminal offense, information regarding the identity of the guilty person, including his behavior before and after committing the offense, his responsibility and circumstances mitigating and aggravating punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the convict's correction. Court of First Instance E. "I don't know," I said, " but I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

However, these circumstances are contradictory, because from the testimony of the convicts at the main trial, it can be seen that they did not actually admit their guilt, apologized to the victim and did not reconcile. The court of first instance, when imposing a penalty, limited only to circumstances mitigating the criminal liability and punishment of convicted persons, did not fully take into account their behavior and actions before and after the commission of a criminal offense, the degree of danger to society of the committed criminal offense, as well as the opinion of the victim on the imposition of punishment. According to the materials of the criminal case, convicted E. I was a group of people together with M. zh., that is, the latter, with the use of firearms, shot once in the leg of H., causing him moderate physical injuries and sentenced to 3 years in prison. At the same time, the convicts E. and J. demanded that the victims B. and H. find narcotic substances, and J. cut the right ear of the latter with a knife.  Their actions are gross and dangerous to human life. The conclusion of the court that in the process of imposing sentences on convicted persons, they can be corrected without isolation from society is premature. The court of Appeal also did not take these circumstances into account and did not correctly assess their actions. Therefore, the judicial board considers it necessary to impose a sentence of deprivation of Liberty sufficient for the convicts E. and ZH. for their correction. In accordance with Part 3 of Article 62 of the criminal code, the time of detention of convicted persons E. and ZH for 2 days from March 26 to 28, 2016 is subject to calculation for the term of punishment in the form of imprisonment at the rate of one day.  At the same time, the motive of the victim X. On the need to qualify the actions of convicted persons in the petition along with paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 293 of the criminal code, as well as paragraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 107 of this code, is not subject to satisfaction, because the body of pre-trial investigation E. and ZH. can be considered by the court only within the limits of the accusation filed by the latter in court in accordance with the specified article of the criminal code and the court in accordance with Part 1 of Article 340 of the criminal code.  In addition, the victim filed a civil claim for the recovery of material damage in the amount of 140,000 tenge due to the embezzlement of H.'s property. However, E. and ZH. are not accused by the pre-trial investigation body of embezzlement of the property of H., therefore, within the framework of this criminal case related to hooliganism, the statement of claim for the recovery of material damage is not subject to consideration. In accordance with Part 1 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code, a civil claim may be filed by a person who has caused direct property or moral damage by a criminal offense, or by his representative, from the beginning of the pre-trial investigation until the end of the judicial investigation.  Victim H. convicted persons E. I filed a civil claim for the recovery of moral damage in the amount of 500,000 tenge from zh. only in the court of Appeal. In this regard, his arguments in the petition for the production of moral damage are also subject to dismissal. On the basis of the above, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on criminal cases convicts E. I am changing the judicial acts of local courts in relation to zh. they were sentenced to 3 years in prison under Paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 293 of the criminal code, serving the sentence in the general regime of a correctional colony, and for the execution of the sentence they were arrested. In accordance with Part 3 of Article 62 of the criminal code, the time of detention of convicted persons E. and ZH for 2 days in the period from March 26 to 28, 2016 was counted as one day per day to the terms of punishment in the form of imprisonment assigned to them.  The rest of the judicial acts were left unchanged, and the petition of the victim H. was partially 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