How to punish for serious bodily injuries resulting in death Article of the Criminal Code

Briefly on the topic of grievous bodily harm

The article is relevant for 2022

Depending on the severity of injuries, there are:

• heavy;
• moderate severity;
• and lungs.

And in terms of the form of guilt - intentional and careless.

In this article we will focus on the qualification of grievous bodily harm, in particular, we will consider the infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in death (Article 121 part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), we will find out what liability comes for causing grievous bodily harm by negligence, and whether there are any features when exceeding self-defense when causing bodily harm in 2020.

Causing grievous bodily harm: article of the Criminal Code

A person is subject to criminal liability for grievous bodily harm (Article 121 of the Criminal Code) if at least one of the following consequences occurs:

1. if it was life-threatening at the time of infliction;
2. resulted in the loss of any organ or its functions;
3. provoked mental illness;
4. entailed another health disorder associated with permanent loss of ability to work by at least 1/3;
5. resulted in termination of pregnancy;
6. resulted in irreparable facial damage.

More details about each of the above signs are described in the Rules for forensic medical determination of the severity of bodily injuries. Let's look at some of them.

Danger to life - bodily injuries are considered life-threatening if, without medical attention, they could result in the death of the victim.

Loss of an organ or loss of organ function includes loss of vision, hearing, tongue, arm, leg, and reproductive ability.

Mental illness as a consequence of severe physical injury occurs regardless of its duration and whether it can be cured. Various reactive states that arise as a result of causing damage (psychosis, neuroses) do not apply. A psychiatric examination is ordered.

Health disorder associated with permanent disability must be at least 33% and is determined by a medical and social expert commission (MSEC).

If the termination of pregnancy occurred as a result of bodily injury, then it is considered grave, regardless of how far along the pregnancy the victim was.

The issue of whether the victim has a mutilated face falls within the competence of the court. And the medical examiner determines whether it is irreparable, for example, if surgery is required to correct it.

2.BODILY INJURY OF MODERATE SEVERITY (Article 122 of the Criminal Code)

Signs of moderate damage:

1. no danger to life;
2. no signs of serious bodily injury;
3. long-term health disorder;
4. permanent loss of ability to work by less than a third.

Long-term health disorder is defined as more than 3 weeks (more than 21 days).

Persistent disability of less than one third is considered to be a loss of total ability to work from 10% to 33%.

Physical injuries of moderate severity include, for example, uncomplicated closed fractures of long tubular bones, mild brain contusion, and the like.

Liability for causing moderate bodily harm

Article 122 of the Criminal Code, like Article 125 of the Criminal Code, has two parts.

Part one - intentional infliction of damage that is not life-threatening and does not entail the consequences provided for in Article 121 of the Criminal Code (intentional grievous bodily injury), but caused long-term health disorder or significant sustainable loss of working capacity of less than one third, for such actions the legislator provided punishment in the form of correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.

Part two - for the same actions as described above, but if they were committed with the aim of intimidating the victim or his relatives or coercing him to certain actions or for reasons of racial, national or religious intolerance, this is punishable by imprisonment from three to five years.

Grievous bodily injuries resulting in death: article of the Criminal Code

One of the aggravating features of the crime is serious bodily injury resulting in death. The most difficult thing in practice is the distinction between this crime and premeditated murder or negligent homicide, which we discussed in detail in the article “How to judge for unintentional and premeditated murder: Art. 115 KKU".

The correct criminal legal assessment of the act determines under which article a person will be held criminally liable, what term of punishment he will be given, and in general, whether his actions contained elements of a crime or whether the death was caused by accident.

Charged under Article 121 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

on the right No. 1-13/09 V I R O K I M E N E M U K R A Y N I 22 September 2009 Rokytnyansky District Court of the Kiev Region at the warehouse of the criminal court Necheporenka L.M., with the secretary Kirichok V.V. ., for the participation of prosecutor L.V. Sakhno. and the patient PERSON_1, having looked at the open court session in the smt. Rokitna criminal record on the accused

OSOBA_2, 22 June 1983 rock people, native of ADDRESS_1, citizen of ADDRESS_2 of Kiev region, citizen of Ukraine, Ukrainian, from basic middle education, unarmed, working INFORMATION Ya_1, not convicted under Article 121 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, - established in and in: June 29, 2008, 19 years old. 30th century the defendant, staying in the office of ADDRESS_3 and the responsible PERSON_3, during the trial of hundreds of cents, cleverly, using the method of bodily harm, inflicted a number of blows on the face of the injured PERSON_1, as a result of which he fell on forgery, where the defendant continued to inflict bodily harm on the victim with his feet in the massacre parts of the body that have caused bodily deterioration. The renewal of the ship medical examination No. 239 D dated November 18, 2008 has been completed. The patient PERSON_1 was found to have physical deterioration in the appearance of abrasions on the face and a traumatic wound on the lower left eye, a closed injury to the thoracic area with a fracture of 7-8 ribs on the right, a closed injury to the cervical pelvis with a rupture of the small intestine and the mesentery, which are classified as serious bodily injuries ushkodzhen, which is not safe for life at the moment of drinking. The defendant in the court hearing admitted his guilt thoroughly and showed that on June 29, 2008, in the evening, he called his father and told him that his mother was in an unsure state of being in someone else’s room and not going home. Having arrived home, I and my father went to the hut, where they found the mother and the victim lying on their beds. The patient wanted to hit the father, but without giving it, he began to beat the patient with his hands, and then with his feet. Then they left the hut and took the mat. Pozov recognizes in part the removal of material harm, and often recognizes moral harm. Having added the defendant, the victim, the evidence, and examined the evidence materials, the court respects the proven guilt of the defendant in committing the incriminated crime. This is confirmed by: The testimony of the patient PERSONAL_1 that on June 29, 2008, while in the cabin of PERSONAL_3, they drank their drink. Then the father and son OSOBA_2 came, where the judge began to beat him in the face, and then with their feet on the body, causing bodily harm, as a result of which he reveled at the doctor’s during a troubling hour. Ask to satisfy the civil authorities and collect 4228 UAH from the defendant. 58 kopecks material damage is 10 thousand. UAH moral. The testimony of OSOBA_2 N.P. showed that from the 27th to the 29th of June 2008 she was patient and was found on October 29, 2008. in the booth OSOBA_3, where she was lying on the sofa. Then the man with the blue and the man came, hitting her. The certificate PERSONAL_3 confirmed that on June 28, 2008, their mothers drank PERSONAL_2 PERSONAL_4 and suffered a stink and spent the night. 10.29.08 a man arrived OSOBA_2 OSOBA_4 and wanted to take her home, but it was no good. After about an hour, OSOBA_2 OSOBA_5 and his son and OSOBA_5 arrived, starting to beat OSOBA_4, and the son of the patient, as a result of which he fell into a forgery. Then they took OSOBA_4 and left. Certificates OSOBA_6. and OSOBA_7 in the court hearing showed that on October 29, 2008, stinks wafted into the mother's cabin OSOBA_3, when the father and son OSOBA_2 came, and OSOBA_2 OSOBA_8 began beating the patient, who was lying on the sofa from OSOBA_2 OSOBA_4. In this case OSOBA_6. having specified that they had drawn the defendant from the victim and they separated. The renewal of the ship medical examination No. 239 D dated November 18, 2008 has been completed. The patient PERSON_1 was found to have physical deterioration in the appearance of abrasions on the face and a traumatic wound on the lower left eye, a closed injury to the thoracic area with a fracture of 7-8 ribs on the right, a closed injury to the cervical pelvis with a rupture of the small intestine and the mesentery, which are classified as serious bodily injuries care, such as those that are unsafe for life at the moment of drinking. The court qualifies the defendant's actions under Article 121 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as the imposition of a serious serious bodily injury, which is not safe for life at the time of the infliction. In case of death, the punishable court will insure the person of the defendant, positive characteristics from the place of residence and work, this century, more than ever. The court respects its soft furnishings more than the judge’s chambers. The court does not accept any stringent circumstances. The medical presence of many circumstances, which will reduce the punishment and will significantly reduce the level of severity of the crime committed - more than at the pre-trial investigation and at the court session, in order to inform the investigative authorities to uncover this crime, the definition of the individual defendant, who is characterized by the place of residence and work positively, The court ruled on the possibility of stagnation before the criminal Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and considered it to be punishable below the lowest limit established by the sanction of the statute. The court respects that the defendant needs to reverse the punishment in the form of a release of liberty. If the defendant's physician has positive characteristics, the court decides on the possibility of his correction without punishment, and therefore makes a decision on the correction of his punishment from testing, if it is not possible Pete's line is not to commit a new mischief and is ending the position on a new bond . According to Article 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, a person who has recognized material harm as a crime has the right to bring the accused before the civil authorities. A similar principle is found in Article 50 of the CCP, in which a citizen who recognizes material harm as evil is recognized as a civilian and is presented with the possibility of resolving the crime in accordance with Article 28 of the CCP. Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine states that we must tolerate the recognition of a person who has been corrupted by moral, physical or moral harm. According to Article 1166 of the Central Committee of Ukraine, moral harm is imposed on a physical individual, it is subject to strict liability to a person who is responsible for it, and Article 1167 of the Central Committee states that moral harm is to be punished by a person who is responsible for it. and, if it is obvious, they are guilty. If a penny-worth of moral damage is determined, according to Article 23 of the Central Committee of Ukraine, the court indemnifies the extent of the physical and mental suffering of the victim, the level of guilt of the defendant, as well as other circumstances that may arise. hundred importance from the principles of reasonableness and fairness. In connection with this, the court respects the possibility of satisfying the entire civil position, the applications will be tolerated in terms of the recovery of material damage in the amount of 4228.58 UAH, the amount of which is confirmed by fiscal receipts. Also, the court respects the possibility of often satisfying the moral harm stated to be tolerated for his harm, since in addition to the transition in the case of moral suffering, as well as suffering from the infliction of grievous bodily harm, it does not matter However, from what kind of darkness comes out, this means the extent of moral depravity This is supported by any evidence (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 4 dated March 31, 1995, as amended on May 25, 2001 “On judicial practice in the law regarding the recovery of moral (non-main) wrongdoing”). In the same way, the court deals with situations in which the victim suffered bodily harm to the defendant. Keryuchis Art. Art. 323-324 Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, court of law: Viznati vinnim OSOBA_2 OSOBA_2 under Art. 121 part 1 of the CC of Ukraine and recognizes the punishment from the cessation of Article 69 of the CC of Ukraine in the form of three risks of abrogation of will. On the stand of the article 75, 76 CC of Ukraine OSOBA_2 OSOBA_2 avoid the execution of the assigned punishment, so that within two steps you will not commit a new crime and end up on a new bond - inform the authorities of the criminal-Victorian system about changing your place of residence and periodically contact them for registration . Deny access to the condemned OSOBA_2 M.M. before it becomes legally valid - a written notice not to leave. To collect from the condemned OSOBA_2 for the cost of OSOBA_1 4228 UAH. 58 kopecks in the container for removing material damage and 5 thousand. UAH moral harm. The total discount is 9228 UAH. 58 kopecks An appeal may be filed against the decision of the court before the appeal court of the Kiev region for a period of 15 days from the moment of its pronouncement. Judging

Features of serious bodily injuries with fatal outcome

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in its explanations notes that the main distinguishing feature is the content and direction of the intent of the perpetrator. Intention as a form of guilt is a person’s internal mental attitude to the action he performs and the consequences.

The question arises: how to understand whether the guilty person was aware of the nature and significance of his actions and whether he foresaw the onset of consequences, whether he wanted or, on the contrary, did not want them to occur?

When deciding this issue, the investigator or the court must be guided by some objective criteria. Such criteria, in particular, are:

1. method, weapon of crime;
2. number, nature and location of wounds and other bodily injuries;
3. reasons for stopping the crime;
4. the behavior of the perpetrator and the victim before the crime, their relationship.

In order to find out the content and direction of intent, it is necessary to consider the totality of all the circumstances of the committed act, and not selectively any of them.

Nevertheless, the decisive factor in qualification should be the subjective attitude of the perpetrator to the consequences of his actions:

1. in case of premeditated murder, the person who commits it desires the death of the victim, that is, has the intent to kill;
2. In case of serious bodily injury resulting in death, if the perpetrator does not wish the death of the victim, murder by negligence occurs.

Thus, this subjective attitude must be considered in conjunction with the objective circumstances analyzed above, which confirm or refute it. Therefore, for correct qualification, it will not be enough for the perpetrator to simply state that he did not want or did not foresee the consequence of death, or vice versa.

GREVIOUS BODILY INJURY (Article 121 of the Criminal Code)

Serious bodily injury has the following characteristics:

1. danger to life;
2. loss of any organ or loss of an organ’s functions;
3. mental illness;
4. health disorder associated with permanent disability of at least one third;
5. abortion;
6. irreparable facial disfigurement.

Concept of grievous bodily harm

Bodily injuries are life-threatening injuries, at the time of infliction or in the clinical course at different intervals of time, causing life-threatening phenomena and which, without medical assistance, in their normal course, end or may end in death.

However, the prevention of death due to the provision of medical care will not be taken into account when assessing the threat to life of such injuries. A life-threatening condition that develops during the clinical course of damage, regardless of the period of time that has passed since its infliction, is in a direct cause-and-effect relationship with it.

Life-threatening injuries:

1. damage that penetrates the cranial cavity, including without damage to the brain;
2. open and closed fractures of the bones of the vault and base of the skull, with the exception of the bones of the facial skeleton and an isolated crack - only the outer plate of the cranial vault;
3. severe brain contusion, both with and without compression, moderate brain contusion in the presence of symptoms of damage to the brain stem;
4. isolated intracranial hemorrhages in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
5. penetrating into the spinal canal, including without damaging the spinal cord and its membranes;
6. fracture-dislocations and fractures of the bodies or both arches of the cervical vertebrae, unilateral fractures of the arches of the first or second cervical vertebrae, as well as fractures of the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra, including without dysfunction of the spinal cord;
7. subluxation of the cervical vertebrae in the presence of life-threatening phenomena, as well as their dislocations;
8. closed spinal cord injuries in the cervical region;
9. fracture or fracture-dislocation of one or more thoracic or lumbar vertebrae with impaired spinal cord function or in the presence of clinically established severe shock;
10. closed injuries to the thoracic, lumbar and sacral segments of the spinal cord, which were accompanied by severe spinal shock or dysfunction of the pelvic organs;
11. damage with complete (all layers) disruption of the integrity of the wall of the pharynx, larynx, trachea, main bronchi, esophagus, regardless of whether they are caused from the skin or from the mucous membrane (lumen of the organ);
12. closed fractures of the hyoid bone, closed and open injuries to the endocrine glands of the neck (thyroid, parathyroid, thymus - in children) - all in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
13. wounds of the chest that penetrated the pleural cavity, pericardial cavity or mediastinal tissue, including without damage to internal organs;
14. damage to the abdomen that penetrated into the abdominal cavity, including without damage to internal organs; open injuries to internal organs located in the retroperitoneal space (kidneys, adrenal glands, pancreas) and in the pelvic cavity (bladder, uterus, ovaries, prostate gland, upper and middle rectum, membranous urethra);
15. closed injuries to the organs of the chest, abdominal cavity, retroperitoneal organs, pelvic cavity - all in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
16. open fractures of the diaphysis (body) of the humerus, buttock and tibia;
17. fractures of the pelvic bones in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
18. damage resulting in severe shock, massive blood loss, coma, acute renal, liver failure, acute respiratory failure, circulatory failure, hormonal dysfunction, acute disorders of regional and organ circulation, fat or gas embolism. All of them must be confirmed by objective clinical data, results of laboratory and instrumental studies;
19. damage to large blood vessels, the aorta, carotid (common, internal, external), subclavian, brachial, gluteal, popliteal arteries or veins that accompany;
20. the general effect of high temperature (heat and sunstroke) in the presence of life-threatening phenomena: thermal burns of III-IV degree with an affected area of ​​more than 15% of the body surface; III degree burns over 20% of the body surface; second degree burns of more than 30% of the body surface, as well as burns of a smaller area, accompanied by severe shock; burns of the respiratory tract in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
21. damage from low temperature, radiation damage and those received under conditions of barotrauma - all in the presence of life-threatening phenomena;
22. poisoning by substances of any origin with a predominance of both local and general effects (including foodborne toxic infections), provided that life-threatening phenomena occurred in the clinical course;
23. all types of mechanical asphyxia, accompanied by a set of disorders of the central nervous system, cardiovascular system and respiratory organs that threatened life; provided that this is established by objective clinical data.

Injuries that are not life-threatening are serious in terms of the final result and consequences, the following bodily injuries:

• loss of an organ or loss of function by an organ;
• loss of vision, hearing, tongue, arm, leg and reproductive ability are, in addition, loss of vision should be understood as: 1) complete permanent blindness in both eyes or a condition where there is a decrease in vision to counting fingers at a distance of two meters or less (visual acuity in both eyes is 0.04 or lower); 2) in case of hearing loss, it should be understood complete persistent deafness in both ears or such an irreversible condition when the victim cannot hear spoken speech at a distance of three to five centimeters from the auricle; 3) with the loss of language (speech), one must understand the loss of the ability to express one’s thoughts in articulate sounds that are understandable to others; 4) the loss of an arm or leg should be understood as their separation from the body or loss of their functions (paralysis or another condition that precludes their activity); 5) reproductive ability should be understood as the loss of the ability to copulate or the loss of the ability to fertilize, conceive and bear children; 6) Mental illness.

A health disorder is defined as a health disorder associated with a permanent loss of working capacity of at least one third (not less than 33%) and which is directly related to the damage that consistently develops the disease process.

The dimensions of persistent (permanent) loss of general ability to work due to damage are established after the investigation of the damage, determined on the basis of objective data based on documents that guide MSEC in its work.

Persistent (permanent) loss of general ability to work is understood as an irreversible loss of function that is not fully restored.

The consequence of damage is complete healing of the damage and disappearance of painful changes. But this does not exclude the possibility of persistent consequences of damage (scar, ankylosis, shortening of limbs, joint deformation, etc.).

Termination of pregnancy is bodily injury that led to the termination of pregnancy, regardless of its duration, and is classified as serious, provided that there must be a direct causal connection between this injury and the termination of pregnancy.

Irreversible disfigurement of the face is not classified by a forensic expert as disfigurement, since this concept is not a medical one. But it determines the type of damage, its characteristics and the mechanism of formation, and determines whether this damage is correctable or irreparable.

Reparability of damage is a significant reduction in the severity of pathological changes (scar, deformation, impaired facial expression, etc.), over time or under the influence of non-surgical means. But if surgical intervention (plastic surgery) is necessary to eliminate it, then the damage to the face should still be considered irreparable.

Judicial practice on compensation for damage caused (property and moral) due to bodily injury

By the decision of the Karlovsky District Court of the Poltava Region in case No. 531/653/17 of August 2, 2022 (the full text of which is available in the Unified State Register of Judicial Decisions of Ukraine) on compensation for property and moral damage caused by the crime.

The claims are justified as follows: 09.30.2014 PERSON_3, while in the store premises, without any reason, deliberately struck PERSON_1 with her right hand to the left temple of the head, from which the plaintiff fell onto the tiled floor of the store and part of her head hit the floor, as a result of which she received bodily injuries in the form of a closed craniocerebral injury, a concussion and a bruise of the soft tissues of the left cheek, which, according to expert opinion No. 1617, are qualified as minor bodily injuries resulting in a short-term health disorder; that is, PERSON_3 committed a criminal offense against PERSON_1, provided for in Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

This crime caused material (the cost of treatment is 22,319.57 UAH, including 2,169 UAH for the examination) and moral damage to the plaintiff. Moral harm consists of loss of peace, overstrain, psychological discomfort, stress, mental suffering caused both by the offense itself and subsequent treatment, health disorders that arose as a result of the crime.

Part 1 of Article 1166 and Part 1 of Article 1167 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, property and moral damage caused to an individual by unlawful decisions, actions or inactions are compensated by the person who caused it if he was at fault.

According to clause 1, part 1 of Art. 22 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, losses are losses that a person has suffered in connection with the destruction or damage of a thing, as well as expenses that a person has made or will have to make to restore his violated right (real damage).

The actions of PERSON_3 were qualified by the court under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine i.e. PERSON_3 was found guilty under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and was sentenced to a fine in the amount of 850 UAH.

According to the conclusion of an additional forensic medical examination No. 1617 dated November 28, 2014, PERSON_1 was found to have physical injuries in the form of a closed craniocerebral injury, a concussion and a bruise of the soft tissues of the left cheek, which were formed at least from a single action of a blunt object (fingers clenched into a fist hands, a person’s foot in shoes or other objects with similar characteristics) and such injuries are qualified as minor bodily injuries; changes in the eye area of ​​PERSON_1 were not taken into account when assessing the severity of the damage caused, since they are not related to the events of September 30, 2014, but are the result of previously acquired diseases.

According to the conclusions of the commission forensic medical examination No. 75 dated June 25, 2015. and repeated forensic medical commission examination No. 87-KE / 2016 / dated 05/16/2016. The victim was found to have: a bruise of the soft tissues of the left cheek, in the form of swelling and hyperemia, which could have been caused by the action of a person’s hand on September 30, 2014. and is qualified as minor bodily injury; diagnosis “Closed craniocerebral injury, concussion” (first established on the 23rd day after the injury), “mild contusion of the right eye” (established on the 8th day after the injury), “post-traumatic conjunctivitis” (established on the 22nd day after the injury ) - are not confirmed by objective forensic data; cause-and-effect relationship between the injury dated September 30, 2014. and there is no deterioration in visual acuity, since such medical data are absent, and the victim underwent surgical treatment for these events according to indications, and retinal detachment is a severe pathology, accompanied by degenerative changes, which can cause a significant decrease in vision.

Thus, expert research has not established a cause-and-effect relationship between the plaintiff’s eye disease and the unlawful actions committed by the defendant.

The plaintiff’s representative’s reference to one of the points of the conclusion indicated above cannot serve as evidence of confirmation of the claims, since in essence it is an assumption (subatrophy of the right eye, delayed uveitis, IOL dislocation and the costs of retinal detachment may be a consequence of a possible contusion of the eyeball 09/30/2014 , and the result of a delayed incendiary reaction to previous surgical interventions), and is not supported by any other evidence provided to the court.

According to Part 6 of Article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, evidence cannot be based on assumptions.

So, the court was not provided with any evidence to confirm the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the defendant’s unlawful actions and the plaintiff’s disease: subatrophy of the right eye, delayed uveitis, IOL dislocation and the costs of retinal detachment.

The plaintiff claimed compensation for property damage and the purchase of medicines, in support of which copies of receipts were provided.

At the same time, the plaintiff did not present to the court the relevant medical prescriptions regarding the treatment of bodily injury in the form of a bruise of the soft tissues of the left cheek.

From an extract from the medical record of an outpatient (PERSON_1), Copies of doctor’s certificates based on the results of consultations, results of magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, advisory opinions, copies of the leaves of the outpatient’s medical record, an ophthalmologist’s discharge summary, invoices, and other medical documentation, it follows that these expenses were incurred by the plaintiff mainly in connection with the treatment of the plaintiff’s disease: subatrophy of the right eye, delayed uveitis, IOL dislocation and retinal detachment.

In the absence of proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between the unlawful actions of the defendant and the specified disease of the plaintiff, there are no grounds provided by law for reimbursement of these expenses.

In addition, the court notes that the receipts provided by the plaintiff for the purchase of medicines in the amount of 232.58 UAH, 4,166.00 UAH. dated June and July 2014, that is, to the defendant's assignment of bodily harm. Thus, the court was not presented with adequate admissible and sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's expenses incurred for the treatment of injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's unlawful actions.

At the same time, on 02/17/2016, an agreement on the provision of services was concluded between PERSON_1 and the Kharkov Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination - conducting a commission forensic medical examination; the total cost of the service provided is UAH 2169.41.

From the copy of the receipt dated March 4, 2016, it is clear that the plaintiff paid UAH 2,169.41 for the examination.

The court noted that, according to Clause 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated March 31, 1995 “On judicial practice in cases of compensation for moral (non-property) damage,” it is explained that the amount of compensation for moral (non-property) damage is determined by the court depending on the nature and volume suffering (physical, emotional, mental, etc.) suffered by the plaintiff, the nature of non-property losses (their duration, possibility of recovery, etc.) and taking into account other circumstances.

The plaintiff asks to recover from the defendant in her favor compensation for moral damage in the amount of 20,000 UAH, justifying this with stress, loss of peace, overexertion, psychological discomfort, mental suffering that was caused by the offenses and subsequent treatment in connection with this.

The court found that as a result of the defendant’s commission of a crime against PERSON_1, she suffered moral damage, since the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the blow and bodily injuries.

The court determines the amount of compensation for moral damage at 5,000 UAH, based on the physical suffering of the plaintiff, the severity of the physical injuries caused (minor bodily injuries), the nature of the offense, in particular the unlawful actions of the PERSON_3 whose crime was committed against an elderly person, who did not reveal, in including in this court session, regret about what was done, affecting the degree of mental suffering of the plaintiff, as well as taking into account the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.

The plaintiff unreasonably claimed the amount of compensation of 20,000 UAH.

In connection with the partial satisfaction of the claim, on the basis of Article 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.

The court decided to partially satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 to PERSON_3 for compensation for property and moral damage caused by the crime.

To recover from PERSON_3 in favor of PERSON_1 for compensation for property damage caused by the crime in the amount of 2169 (two thousand one hundred sixty five) hryvnia 00 kopecks.

To recover from PERSON_3 in favor of PERSON_1 for compensation for moral damage caused by the crime, 5,000 (five thousand) hryvnia.

Compensation for damage to health in an accident is based on the same principle of proof and is also carried out according to the principle indicated above.

Difference between grievous bodily harm and negligent homicide

The Supreme Court/KKS, having considered case No. 750/3256/17 dated August 15, 2019, ruled that if the victim died directly not from a blow, but from a fall as a result of an impact , then the crime should be classified as murder by negligence, and not as grievous bodily injury , resulting in death.

The plot of the judicial act : In fact, sometimes it is very difficult to correctly classify a crime as a result of which a person died. Therefore, both the courts of first instance and the appellate court make mistakes. This is a case about changing the qualification of a convicted person’s crime from “intentional grievous bodily injury resulting in the death of the victim” (Part 2, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to “murder by negligence” (Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

The circumstances of the case have been established and are not denied by either the convicted person or the prosecution.

The convict punched the victim in the eyes with his left fist and hit the victim in the face with his right foot, as a result of which the victim fell on the asphalt, hit the back of his head and died in the hospital as a result of the injury.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the division of crimes under Part 2 of Art. 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Part 1 of Art. 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is carried out on the objective and subjective sides.

In this case, the basis for the distinction is the conclusion of a medical expert in the case, according to which the death of the victim did not occur directly from an impact, but as a result of a fall onto a plane with a previously acquired acceleration from the impact and an intracranial injury resulting from the fall with a bone fracture.

So, the convict did not inflict and did not have the intent to inflict bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim.

At the same time, the convict, although he did not foresee death from the fall of the victim, should and could have foreseen the tragedy during the striking, therefore his actions should be qualified as murder by negligence.

Although murder is considered a more terrible crime than causing grievous bodily harm resulting in death, the punishment after the Supreme Court changed the qualification of 7 years was reduced to 4 years in prison. This was the professional work of a lawyer. The Supreme Court took into account the sincere repentance of the convicted person, but refused to apply Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and did not release the killer from punishment with probation.

Finally

This article discussed only the most important key points and concepts relating to crimes of causing bodily harm to a person and the procedure for proving such crimes to compensate for harm caused to life and health, however, for more detailed professional advice, the Law Office of “Ekaterina Anferova” and the legal platform Protocol ( Protocol), they recommend contacting a lawyer who is a specialist in this area of ​​law.

Author of the consultation: Anferova K.S. - Director, lawyer of the Law Firm "Ekaterina Anferova"

Source: Legal portal Protocol

Distinguishing between intentional and careless forms of guilt

In reckless homicide, which we discussed in the already mentioned article on murder, the attitude towards both the actions and the consequence in the form of death is careless.

In cases of severe bodily injury, the attitude towards actions is intentional, and towards the consequences - careless. This is a double culpability crime, but is generally considered reckless.

An even more complex situation may arise when there is a certain period of time between the bodily injury and the death of the person (for example, if the person was poisoned, but the poison took effect after a few days, etc.). In this case, such an act will not automatically be considered only serious bodily injury, but if the perpetrator had the intent to kill, then it will be premeditated murder despite the fact that death did not occur immediately.

It is also necessary to separate the infliction of bodily harm as a result of criminal arrogance from the commission of these acts with indirect intent (when the perpetrator foresaw and consciously allowed the occurrence of the corresponding consequences, without counting on any specific circumstances that could prevent it).

It is also necessary to distinguish between causing bodily harm as a result of criminal negligence and innocent harm (when a person did not foresee the consequences at all, should not have and (or) could not have foreseen them).

So, as we see, very great difficulties arise with proving certain elements of the crime that resulted in the death of the victim. Therefore, without proper legal assistance and a properly structured defense, the accused risks being criminally liable for another crime, perhaps even more serious than the one he actually committed.

Causing grievous bodily harm in an accident

In the Criminal Code of Ukraine, many crimes are structured as complex. Therefore, individual crimes can act as parts of entire compositions of other crimes. This, in particular, causes grievous bodily harm in an accident.

Thus, Article 286 of the Criminal Code in part two establishes criminal liability for violation of road safety rules or operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle, resulting in serious bodily injury. The term of imprisonment for such actions is from 3 to 8 years, as well as deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for up to three years or without it.

In this case, additionally, under Article 121 of the Criminal Code, grievous bodily harm is not qualified.

MINOR BODILY INJURY (Article 125 of the Criminal Code)

Divided into two subgroups:

• Cause short-term health problems or minor permanent disability;
• Do not cause short-term health problems or minor permanent disability.

Signs of minor injury:

1. short-term health disorder – more than six days, but not more than three weeks (21 days);
2. minor persistent loss of general ability to work – up to 10%.

Minor bodily injury that does not result in short-term health impairment or minor permanent loss of ability to work is defined as lasting no more than six days.

Liability for minor bodily injury

Article 125 of the Criminal Code consists of two parts, each of which provides for the following punishment.

Thus, part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code, for causing minor bodily injury, the legislation defines a fine of up to fifty non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens or community service for up to two hundred hours, or correctional labor for up to one year.

The second part of Article 125 of the Criminal Code - intentional minor bodily injury, resulting in a short-term health disorder or minor loss of ability to work, provides for the imposition of a fine from fifty to one hundred tax-free minimum incomes of citizens or community service for a period of one hundred fifty to two hundred forty hours, or correctional labor for a period up to one year, or arrest for up to six months, or restriction of freedom for up to two years.

Causing grievous bodily harm through negligence

Causing grievous bodily harm through negligence is a crime of minor gravity; the sanction of Article 128 of the Criminal Code does not even provide for imprisonment among the punishments; the highest penalty is restriction of liberty for a term of up to 2 years.

Please note that the main distinguishing feature of crimes provided for in Articles 121 and 128 of the Criminal Code is the form of guilt. Therefore, it depends on proper proof of the fact of careless infliction of bodily harm for which crime a person will be convicted - for a serious intentional crime or for causing serious bodily harm through negligence.

It is difficult for a person who is not a specialist in the field of criminal law to understand the intricacies and methods of his defense on his own.

Excess of self-defense

Only one type of bodily injury has privileged elements of crime; This is grievous bodily harm.

It should be noted that Articles 123, 124 of the Criminal Code, similarly to the case of intentional murder, provide for three privileged features:

1. exceeding the limits of necessary defense;
2. exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend a criminal;
3. caused in a state of strong emotional excitement (or in a state of passion). Read about what “privileged crimes” are and their characteristics in the article on premeditated murder.

Provided by SendPulse

To summarize the topic of causing grievous bodily harm:

1. Article 121 of the Criminal Code defines six criteria by which bodily injury can be classified as serious.
2. Order of the Ministry of Health No. 6 of January 17, 1995 provides for the Rules for the forensic medical determination of the severity of bodily injuries, which establish medical criteria for each of the signs of serious bodily injury.
3. Both intentional and reckless grievous bodily harm are criminally punishable.
4. By analogy with intentional murder, the law also provides for privileged offenses of intentional grievous bodily harm.
5. In those crimes where severe bodily injury is an integral part (consequence) of a particular act, there is no need to further qualify such actions under Article 121 of the Criminal Code.

Please share this article on social media!

Other articles in this section
• How is extortion of money punished under the Criminal Code of Ukraine?
• How to punish for bodily injury of moderate severity, Article 122 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine
• What's new in the law on domestic violence?
• How to punish under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud)
• How to File a Civil Claim in a Criminal Case
• How to judge for unintentional and premeditated murder: Art. 115 KKU

Article 121

Analyze the judicial act: Viktor: The Supreme Court found out that defense was also necessary and decided to prosecute the accused under Part 1, Art. 121 CC of Ukraine (VS/KKS dated April 19, 2018 at reference No. 722/1981/16—k)

Despite all the reforms and the new CPC, the percentage of truly inflated revolutions in Ukraine is reduced to less than 30 years after Stalin’s time. Such concepts as “necessary defense” and “self-defense” are deprived of the more theoretical and everyday uniform approach of the established courts. As a rule, if the victim has a problem with the crime, the charges are found guilty, although the punishment will be reduced or otherwise qualified as a criminal offence.

The one on the right is a rare occurrence, if the charges were acquitted by the courts of three instances, regardless of the infliction of two, and not one, knife blows on the victim in the presence of alcohol, as the accused were qualified for partial Yu 1, st. 121 CC of Ukraine - “mindful serious corporal punishment.”

In this case, he formed a stand, beating the accused and threatening him with beating, and after that, as soon as the accused was confronted with the powerful guard, he fought to the guard and again victoriously and physically began beating the accused. So the violence on the side of the victim in relation to the accused was trivial, which was confirmed by testimony. Without any further accusations, I zastosuv nizh for self-defense.

Having accepted the acquittal of the accused, the Supreme Court/KKS stipulated Art. 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – “necessary defense” and having explained in detail how such a clause itself is required to qualify the accused.

Thus, it is necessary to understand that a small person has been kidnapped, it is really possible to effectively prevent unsafe attacks in other ways due to the attacker’s harm, which is necessary and sufficient in a particular situation. staging for negaynoy vyvernennya and pripenenny encroachment. In order to establish the presence or absence of signs of transfer between the necessary defenses, it is necessary to examine not only the similarity and the unfamiliarity of the defense and attack, but also the nature of the insecurity that threatened the individual, I as it was protected, the furnishings that could be pushed into the real flow of forces, from the point of view: place and the hour of attack, his raptness, unpreparedness before his defeat, the number of attackers and those who were defended, their physical data (age, health) and other conditions.

In this case, it is important to understand whether the person who is defending himself could, by looking at the objective situation and the behavior of the attacker, understand that the encroachment has taken place, so that it would be obvious for such a person, given the objective conditions, that he is at a standstill. and fell into despair necessity. Given the situation that has developed, there is no small possibility of recognizing the fact that a malicious attack has been committed, it is important to remember that she was acting in the camp of a necessary defense. In addition, the encroachment is considered obvious and even if it has not happened, however, it can reappear at any moment.

Analyze the court act: Essential for the qualification of a criminal under Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is the direct intent of the death of the victim (right No. 646/10855/15-k dated 09/28/2017)

In practice, the investigation of criminal cases about crimes that resulted in the death of the victim and their subsequent judicial review is often necessary to ensure the correct qualification of the guilty individual. The article of the Criminal Code must be stagnated - Art. 115 CC of Ukraine (intelligent driving) or part 2 of Art. 121 Criminal Code of Ukraine (serious bodily injuries that resulted in the death of the victim).

In this regard, the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine has decided to specifically determine the separation of these warehouses of evil.

The court of the first instance convicted the person for part 1 of Art. 115 CC of Ukraine for those who came to the house of de Vin live together with their sleeping bag, who at that hour was at the house together with their acquaintances, who was in the state of strong alcoholic intoxication and could not repair the op ір,, on the land of jealousy delivered two blows with his fist to the victim’s head, and died as a result. After this, he loaded the victim into the trunk of his car and drove him to the lake, which was nearby and was in line there.

When reviewing the appeal order, the defendant's attorney ordered the reclassification of his actions under Part 2 of Art. 121 CC of Ukraine at station. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine motivates us that every day he had the intention of killing the victim. In addition, the judgments in the course of the pre-trial investigation and investigation were dealt with by the courts, and for an hour the victim was transported to Lake Toy Dikhav and showing signs of life.

Prote, the appellate court brought it to justice without taking and assessing these arguments without giving it.

In its turn, the cassation court changed the rule of the court and reclassified the defendant’s actions under Part 1 of Art. 115 CC of Ukraine and part 2 art. 121 of the Code of Ukraine of Ukraine, having designated, in this case, what is primary when qualifying an individual for Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine there is a direct intention to make life easier for the victim, and in times of severe bodily harm that caused the death of the victim, placing wine before such inheritance is characterized by negligence. Nutrition about the intent comes from the totality of all the circumstances of the action performed, including the medical method, regarding the severity, severity, nature and localization of bodily injuries, the reasons for the occurrence of malicious actions, behavior nku of wine and patience, who passed on the pods, their centenaries