Article 105 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2022

The murder of two or more persons is considered a particularly serious crime, which is why this interpretation is used with caution in practice. Such an atrocity is qualified by Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, clause “a”, part 2, adopted by the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in murder cases” (clause 5).

This article will tell you in detail about the characteristic features of this crime, how direct intent differs from indirect intent, as well as how the motive is determined and what aggravating circumstances may be.

Characteristic signs

The main characteristic feature of the murder of two or more persons is the common criminal intention of the attacker. In this case, the crime can be committed either at the same time or over a short period of time. If the offenses did not have a single intent and were committed at different times, they are regarded as two murders independent of each other.

A single plan can be traced through the same motives for the crime in relation to different victims. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between direct and indirect intent .

The first represents a conscious intention to take a person’s life with an understanding of the inevitability of death.

Indirect intent - the criminal assumes the likelihood of depriving the life of a person or group of people, without defining this as his goal, he simply allows such a scenario to develop (according to Article 25 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

In the case where the crime was committed at different times, the single intent can be exclusively direct . When the murder occurred at the same time, the intention may be:

Directly with the deprivation of life of more than two people.
Indirect, at least two people were killed.
Direct, aimed at taking the life of one person and indirect in relation to other victims.

It is possible to qualify murder under Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph “a”, part 2 only when its consequence is the simultaneous deprivation of life of two or more persons by one or different acts.

If a criminal planned to take the lives of several people, but in fact one of them was killed, while others were attacked for reasons beyond the control of the criminal, then the crime cannot be qualified as a crime (murder of two or more persons).

In this situation, what happened should be considered as simple or qualified murder in accordance with Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, parts 1, 2, and also in accordance with Art. 105, paragraph “a”, part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (upon the death of at least one person).

Set of acts

A set of offenses is one of the types of multiplicity of atrocities : the commission of several crimes that, according to their qualification characteristics, belong to different articles (or parts thereof) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Article 17 of the Criminal Code). An important condition is the absence of a previous conviction for one of these acts. Exceptions may be:

criminal actions related to the Special Part of the Criminal Code and involving more severe punishment (Part 1);
one act in which signs of offenses specified in several articles of the Criminal Code are visible (Part 2).

If a set of crimes is established, the culprit is responsible for each of them under the relevant article. Characteristic features of the set of crimes:

Committing several separate crimes. At the same time, there should be no single intent in the incidents, actions are aimed at different objects, and the objective side is different.
Offenses can be homogeneous (related to one article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or heterogeneous (related to different articles of the Criminal Code).
They differ in the stages of committing the offense.
The defendant has not been convicted of any of the crimes previously. Moreover, the presence of a criminal record occurs immediately after the announcement of the court verdict (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 N 58). If the first sentence has not yet entered into force, the actions of the defendant may be considered based on the totality of crimes (Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The murder of two or more persons can be considered as a combination of crimes if the intent to commit a crime arose at different times. If the actions of the attacker were committed at the same time and had a single intent behind them, then they should be classified as a single crime.

Corpus delicti

The subject of a crime in the deprivation of life of two or more persons (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph “a”) is an individual over fourteen years of age.

The subjective side of a crime lies in the presence of guilt in the form of intent (direct or indirect). This means that the criminal understands the threats that his actions will entail. The perpetrator consciously assumes the subsequent occurrence of death of certain persons, desires it, or is indifferent to the specified outcome of events and allows them.

The object of the crime provided for in Article 105 paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the interaction of persons that violates the right to life of certain people (Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

The object of the crime can be:

generic - the interaction of persons in society, guaranteeing natural human rights enshrined in law; in this case – the right to life;
species - social relations involving the protection of the right to life;
direct – the right to life of a certain person.

Simply put, this is what is harmed - the life of a person (people).

The objective side of this issue is an illegal action or inaction that directly leads to the death of two, three or more people. A murder can be considered completed only when the actions of the accused are followed by the death of people.

Difficulties in qualifying the incident under clause “A”, part 2 of art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The murder of two or more persons implies the presence of complex characteristic features of the crime, which complicates its qualification. The practical application of legal norms in this case has many contradictions and is sometimes unfair. For example, serial murders cannot be classified under Art. 105, paragraph “a”, part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the actions of the perpetrator have a large time interval, and there is also no single intent.

To correctly qualify this type of crime, specialists carry out an examination of the subjective side of the incident in order to clearly determine the sequence of actions of the offender, as well as his true intentions regarding the victims.

To establish the fact of the murder of several persons, corresponding to paragraph “a”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, you need to find out:

Was there a common intention to kill several people even before the incident?. This means that it is necessary to find evidence of the targeted killing of several persons by a perpetrator who was aware and desired such a result of his actions (or allowed it).
Important! The intent must arise before the first murder is committed. In order to establish the intention of the criminal, the motive for the crime is also considered. This factor does not influence the qualification of the crime.
The key point is the goal - killing several people. If intentions towards each victim appear independently of each other, the actions are defined as deprivation of life in the aggregate (Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) regardless of the time interval.
Was the crime committed simultaneously or over a short period of time?.
Time frames are considered individually depending on the circumstances of the case. In practice, most often the interval between crimes should not exceed three to four hours.
Determining the attribution of a criminal act becomes difficult when the circumstances of the case are not fully clarified, and the characteristic features of the offense under another part of the article are visible. In such a situation, attention should be paid to the main signs of murder.
Such a crime as the deprivation of life of a woman who is in a state of pregnancy (regardless of the period) is considered according to a separate norm - paragraph “d”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When qualifying, the following are also taken into account:
- the identity of the victims (for example, those in government service); whether the occupation became the cause of illegal actions;

Results

Mutual dependence becomes of paramount importance when checking the tax consequences of transactions made between dependent parties.
Despite the existence of a fairly detailed list of criteria that make persons interdependent, there is the possibility of both creating additional grounds for this and not recognizing persons as dependent. You can find more complete information on the topic in ConsultantPlus. Free trial access to the system for 2 days.

Ambiguity in the definition of motive

The motive of a crime is the reason that prompted the perpetrator to commit a criminal act aimed at achieving a specific goal (the murder of two or more persons).

The main problem in determining the motive for a murder is that it is not always possible to unambiguously establish the reasons for the crime. In addition, motivation in the process of committing illegal actions may undergo changes.

Another factor complicating the disclosure of the true reasons for the crime may be different motives united by one crime (for example, when several people are killed with a firearm). The motive acts as an independent characteristic of the subjective side of the offense, while qualifying one incident with different motives under paragraph “a”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, one of them is not taken into account or is included in the murder to which it is not related.

The intent in a crime for the same motive may differ. So, one person can be killed by direct intent, the second - by indirect intent. If several persons are deprived of life by different actions and for different reasons, the act cannot be considered as a single thing and is classified according to the totality of crimes.

What factors cannot be considered cruelty in murder?

There are only two factors that have signs of cruelty in the deprivation of life, but at the same time are not it. We are talking about mocking the victim’s body and dismembering the body. In the first case, everything is simple - if the killer continued to abuse the victim after his death, then he will be charged with another very serious offense, namely Article 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Desecration of the body.” In the case of dismemberment, everything is more complicated. It will, of course, be taken into account by investigators and the court, but what factor it will act as when passing a sentence is another question. And only the judge himself can answer it, based on his own practice.

Responsibility

Federal Law No. 162-FZ of December 8, 2003, as amended. No. 73-FZ of July 21, 2004, as well as No. 377-FZ of December 27, 2009, provides for imprisonment from 8 to 20 years, restriction of freedom for up to 2 years, life imprisonment for murder with aggravating circumstances. Such crimes include the deprivation of life of two or more persons. In addition to the above, aggravated murder is:

deprivation of life related to the professional activity of the victim;
a minor, a helpless person, as well as murder with kidnapping;
pregnant woman;
particularly cruel acts;
violating public safety;
out of hostility to a social group (race, nationality, for political, ideological or religious reasons) or blood feud;
committed by an organized criminal group;
for selfish reasons, also associated with banditry;
associated with hooliganism;
to conceal other crimes, also related to sexual violence;
to obtain donor organs.

If the murder of two or more persons is not accomplished for any reason, the incident is considered as an attempt. In this case, the maximum sentence is 15 years (in accordance with Article 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Life imprisonment does not apply in this situation.

If the offense has aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances may also be taken into account in the usual manner when considering it.

These are taken into account only when these facts characterize the personality of the perpetrator, and also affect the level of public danger of his actions.

If there was a confession

Confession is a voluntary report by the perpetrator of the crime committed. Done orally or in writing. The written form is provided in the form of an application.

If the confession is oral, then first the identity of the person who has appeared is established, then a protocol is drawn up indicating:

position, title and personal data of the person who compiled the protocol;
the article on which it was compiled;
time of arrival;
information about the person who committed the crime;
his passport details;
a detailed description of what happened.

The protocol is signed by the culprit and the official. Confession is a reason to initiate a criminal case; circumstance mitigating punishment, exemption from criminal liability.

After confessing, the applicant is brought to criminal responsibility as a suspect.

Acts as a mitigating circumstance only if the culprit appears voluntarily, and not after he has already been detained and he has confessed to everything.

After this, the applicant can expect to receive a minimum prison sentence or replace it with another type of punishment.

If there were accomplices during the murder, it is important to inform the police about this - the court will regard such an act as assistance to the investigation. The punishment in this case may be below the minimum.

Contradictions in the classification of assassination attempts

The murder of two or more persons is considered as one criminal act and does not form a set of crimes. At the same time, in accordance with the changes in paragraph. 2 clause 5 of the Supreme Court Resolution No. 1 of January 27, 1999, the deprivation of life of one person and the unfinished murder of a second (attempt) cannot be attributed to the deprivation of life of two or more persons. In this situation, the offense should be considered, regardless of the intentions and timing of the act, as part 1, 2 of Art. 105, part 3 art. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The difficulty of qualification lies in the presence of contradictions. On the one hand, taking the lives of several people should be considered as one crime. On the other hand, when at least one murder attempt ends unsuccessfully, the event can be regarded as both one unfinished crime and as a set of such.

This contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways: either by recognizing the deprivation of life of one person and the attempt on the life of the second as an unfinished, ongoing offense, or by applying to such situations the interpretation of both multiple murder and aggregation of crimes.

The latter consideration of the issue presupposes double standards that are unacceptable in legislation from a position of fairness. The first option corresponds to the provisions of Part 1 of Article 17, Article 30, paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but violates the procedure for independent examination of each illegal action (Part 1 of Article 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Qualifications for the murder of a woman who is known to be pregnant by the perpetrator

Bibliographic description:

Pavalaki, Adriana. Questions of qualification of the murder of a woman who is known to be pregnant by the perpetrator / Adriana Pavalaki. — Text: direct // Law: modern trends: materials of the IV International. scientific conf. (Krasnodar, February 2022). - Krasnodar: Novation, 2022. - pp. 112-115. — URL: https://moluch.ru/conf/law/archive/225/11722/ (access date: 03/03/2022).

Paragraph “d” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) provides for criminal liability for the murder of a woman who is known to be pregnant by the perpetrator. This type of qualified murder is familiar to Russian legislation of both the Soviet (Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1960) and pre-Soviet (Code of Punishments 1845) periods. The increased public danger of this kind of murder is due to the fact that the perpetrator encroaches on the life of not only a real (the pregnant woman herself), but also a potential (her fetus) person.

The Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 1999 No. 1 “On judicial practice in murder cases (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)” contains no explanations regarding the application of this qualifying feature [23]. Pregnancy refers to the condition of a woman during the development of the fetus in her body. This period is limited to the moments of conception (the birth of the fetus in the womb) and the beginning of labor pains. For qualification under clause “d”, part 2 of art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not matter either the gestational age or the viability of the fetus [16]. After the onset of labor pains, the question of an encroachment on the lives of two or more persons should be raised [7].

The law does not connect the qualification of the act under this paragraph with the special purpose and motives of the perpetrator (pregnancy of the victim is not necessarily the motive for the murder, just as getting rid of the fetus is not necessarily its goal). They can be anything (revenge, jealousy, personal hostility, etc.) [11], and therefore the type of intent is determined in relation to the crime itself - intentional deprivation of life, and it can be committed with both direct and indirect intent . In the latter case, the perpetrator does not want the death of the pregnant woman, but consciously allows for the possibility of its occurrence as a result of beating with particular cruelty, the use of toxic substances dangerous to life, etc. [25]

The sign of “knowledge” is indicated by the legislator and is essential for qualifying the offense: criminal liability under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation occurs if the perpetrator at the time of committing the murder reliably knew about the pregnancy of the victim, while the source of such information does not play a role in qualifying the crime [9]. Vaulina T.I. believes that this awareness can be based on her own visual observation, on familiarization with official documents issued by the relevant medical institutions, on information that became known during communication with the victim. Assumptions, probabilistic judgments about these circumstances exclude the possibility of imputation under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [26]. However, Borodin S.V. expressed the position that knowledge about the pregnant state of the victim can be presumptive [16].

Korobeev A.I. points out that the term “knowledge” excludes the possibility of doubts and assumptions on the part of the killer regarding the presence of the victim’s pregnancy. In his view, awareness of this fact should be undoubted, unconditional, indisputable. In other words, the perpetrator must be internally convinced that the victim, whose life he is encroaching on, is in a state of pregnancy at the time of the murder. Another thing is to what extent such a subjective idea and belief correspond to reality.

The greatest controversy in theory and judicial practice is caused by the qualification of the actions of a person committing the crime under analysis in conditions of a factual error [14].

In a situation where the subject did not know when committing the murder that the victim was pregnant, this qualifying circumstance is not imputed to him. Thus, the Supreme Court of Russia came to the reasonable conclusion that a person who did not reliably know about the victim’s pregnancy cannot be held responsible for murder under paragraph “g” of Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (clause “d”, part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). By the verdict of the Tyumen Regional Court, Bazhenov was convicted under paragraph “g” of Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to 10 years in prison. He was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife. Bazhenov pleaded guilty, but explained that he knew about his wife’s pregnancy presumably, from the words of the victim, who herself did not know for sure about it. He committed the murder out of jealousy. Having considered the case on the cassation appeal of the lawyer, in which he asked the actions of the convicted person to be reclassified under Art. 103 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR found the sentence subject to change. Bazhenov’s guilt in committing a crime has been proven by the case materials. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, Bazhenova’s death was caused by a knife wound penetrating the right pleural cavity with injury to the lung tissue and blood vessels, causing acute bleeding. The court reasonably came to the conclusion that the convicted person was guilty of the murder of Bazhenova. However, Bazhenov’s actions were incorrectly classified under clause “g” s. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. A forensic medical examination established that Bazhenova was pregnant for 10–15 days. As can be seen from the testimony of witnesses, the victim did not know with certainty that she was pregnant, but only assumed about it. At the court hearing, Bazhenov testified that his wife allegedly told him about her pregnancy. Consequently, Bazhenov obviously did not know that his wife was pregnant, so he cannot be held liable under paragraph “g” of Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR [27].

In a situation where the perpetrator, on the contrary, kills a woman whom he mistakenly believed to be pregnant (for example, if she herself lied about her pregnancy in order to “tie” to herself a man who is supposedly the father of the unborn child) [6], but in reality this condition there is none, a difficult question arises about the qualifications of the crime.

Some scientists believe that in such a situation, a mistake in the identity of the victim should not matter, and the crime must be qualified according to the direction of intent as the completed murder of a woman who is pregnant (clause “d”, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [15 , 10].

Others are inclined to believe that in cases of the specified factual error, the crime should be classified as simple murder (Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [5], i.e., they propose, on the contrary, not to take into account the direction of the intent of the perpetrator, to qualify the acts based on from actual objective signs.

Still others propose to qualify murder under such circumstances according to the totality of crimes provided for in Part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “g”, part 2, art. 105 and part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [17]. However, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “no one can be held criminally liable twice for the same crime.” This opinion is confirmed by the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Thus, considering the supervisory appeal in the case of G., the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation established that the defendant G., being sure that his cohabitant was pregnant, during an quarrel fired a shot from a hunting rifle at her head, causing her a fatal wound. The court qualified G.’s actions under Part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “g”, part 2, art. 105 and part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, admitting that the intent to kill a obviously pregnant woman was not completed by G. due to circumstances beyond his control, since the victim was not pregnant, which he did not know about. The Presidium of the Supreme Court excluded from the court decisions made in this case the reference to Part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “g”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the following reasons. According to Part 2 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, one action (inaction) containing signs of crimes provided for by two or more articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can be recognized as a set of crimes. Thus, the court of first instance erroneously classified G.’s actions as a set of crimes. But since his intention to take the life of the victim was fully realized and as a result of his actions the death of the victim occurred, the act was qualified only under Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [3].

Dyadyun K., analyzing this decision, agrees that it is impossible to recognize as a totality a situation where one action contains signs not of two (or more) articles of the Criminal Code, but of two parts of the same article, since this does not comply with the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [14]. But at the same time, if the perpetrator is convinced that he is killing a pregnant woman and desires it (i.e., he is aware of this qualifying circumstance), then this significantly increases the degree of public danger of the act and should be reflected in the qualification [8]. In other words, when making this enforcement decision, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation substantiated the reasons for which it considered the conviction of a person under the rules of aggregation of crimes to be unfounded; at the same time, the conclusion remained completely without argument that it was precisely Part 3 of Article 30, paragraph “d” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and not Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code that had to be excluded from the conviction RF.

On the contrary, many scientists propose to classify what was done in the case under consideration as an attempted murder of a woman who was known to be pregnant by the perpetrator, i.e., under Part 3 of Art. 30 and paragraph “d”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [20]. This qualification corresponds to the intent of the perpetrator to take the life of a pregnant woman, and takes into account the fact that the goal was not achieved for reasons beyond the will of the perpetrator. It is precisely the failure to achieve the intended goal that determines the use of legal fiction: an act that constitutes a completed crime is qualified as an attempt [6]. This fiction is justified by the fact that although a socially dangerous consequence occurred, in reality it was not accompanied by that qualified circumstance that was captured by the consciousness of the perpetrator and which, in accordance with the direction of intent, justifies increased responsibility [21]. In addition, a literal understanding of the crime provided for in paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, assumes that its sign is a socially dangerous consequence in the form of the death of a pregnant woman, and such a consequence does not occur in the case under consideration. Another argument for this point of view may be the thesis formulated by A.N. Krasikov: within the meaning of the law, not only irremovable doubts about his guilt in general are interpreted in favor of the defendant, but also irremovable doubts regarding individual episodes of the charge brought, the form of guilt, the degree and the nature of participation in the commission of a crime, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, etc. Therefore, doubts about the classification of the murder of a woman who was not pregnant, although, according to the conviction of the perpetrator, she was in such a state, should be resolved in favor of the accused (defendant) [28 ]. But not in the sense of assessing his actions as committing a simple murder, but in the sense of qualifying them as an attempted murder of a pregnant woman [16].

The culprit made a mistake not in the individual as a bearer of any general social qualities, but in the features of those characteristics that are inherent only to a given individual, at a given moment in his physiological state. Since there was no actual influence on these qualifying properties of the victim, they cannot be imputed, which means that this act cannot be qualified as a completed crime. The rule on unfinished criminal activity in this case most correctly reflects the essence of the matter. It shows the direction of the actions of the perpetrator and the fact that the result he was striving for did not occur for reasons independent of his will [24].

In accordance with Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, “the basis for criminal liability is the commission of an act containing all the elements of a crime provided for by this Code,” that is, the presence of a full set of elements of a crime provided for by law. Consequently, if in the planned and committed act there are grounds for criminal liability, but in the act actually committed not all the elements of a crime are present, then this will mean the absence of a completed crime or the presence of an unfinished crime (Part 1 of Article 29 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Despite the fact that the last of the proposed options is fully consistent with the provisions of criminal law science, law enforcement practice is apparently incompatible with the idea that an act that actually resulted in death can be qualified as attempted murder. In this regard, it is necessary to search for a legislative solution that would qualify the deprivation of life of a victim mistakenly mistaken for a pregnant woman as murder with aggravating circumstances. Several solutions to this problem have been proposed in the literature.

Popov A.N. expressed the idea that “it is necessary to equate an encroachment on the life of a pregnant woman with an encroachment on the life of two or more persons, while at the same time explaining in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that an encroachment on the life of a pregnant woman should be considered as an encroachment on the life of two persons with all the ensuing consequences" [19]. Popov A.N. also proposes the appropriate formulation: “An attack on the life of two or more persons, as well as on the life of a pregnant woman and a child in the womb” [19].

Smirnov V.A. considered that if “we formulate the criterion in question as “the murder of a woman for reasons of her pregnancy, as well as for other reasons, provided that the perpetrator reliably knew about the pregnancy,” then, on the one hand, the indication of a special the object of criminal legal protection, and on the other hand, this will allow the crime to be classified as a completed crime, regardless of whether the victim was actually pregnant or not, since the emphasis will be placed on the motives of the perpetrator” [22]. However, firstly, the proposed formulation is cumbersome and difficult to understand; secondly, it is doubtful that it allows qualifying as completed murder cases where the perpetrator mistakenly believed the victim was pregnant, but did not kill her for reasons of this imaginary pregnancy.

Babiy N.A. offers, in our opinion, a more optimal option: “committing the murder of a woman when death actually occurs should be classified as a completed crime, regardless of the presence or absence of her pregnancy. The qualifying circumstance should be transferred to the area of intent to cause the death of a pregnant woman, without making it dependent on the motivation or goal setting of such a murder. To achieve just such a criminalization of murder, the fact of pregnancy must only be reflected in the consciousness of the subject. Thus, increased liability will remain both for cases of murder due to a woman’s pregnancy, and for cases of murder for other reasons, for example, revenge for treason. As a result, liability should be provided for murder when an attempt is made on the life of a woman who is known to be pregnant” [7].

Based on the above opinion, we propose to change the wording of the qualifying feature in question to: “the murder of a woman whom the perpetrator considered pregnant.”

Literature:

1. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of June 13, 1996 N 63-FZ (as amended by Federal Law of November 22, 2016 No. 392-FZ) // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 25. Art. 2954.

2. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 1999 No. 1 “On judicial practice in murder cases (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)” (as amended by Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 3, 2015 No. 9) / / Library of the Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 1999. No. 8.

3. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 16, 2008 No. 420-P07 in the case of G. // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 2008. - No. 8.

4. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1965. No. 11.

5. Andreeva L.A. Qualification of murders committed under aggravating circumstances. - St. Petersburg, 1998.

6. Andrushko P. A., Aryamov A. A., Babiy N. A. Crime against a person in the criminal law of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine / resp. ed. Chuchaev A.I. - Moscow: Prospekt, 2014.

7. Babiy N.A. Qualification of murders under aggravating circumstances: Monograph. - M.: INFRA-M, 2014.

8. Bavsun M., Vishnyakova N. The influence of the direction of intent on the qualification of murders committed under aggravating circumstances // Criminal law. 2006. No. 1.

9. Bozhenok S.A. Qualification of crimes against the person: a textbook. — Moscow: Prospekt, 2022.

10. Borodin S.V., Trusova A.I. Judicial practice to the criminal code of the Russian Federation, under general. ed. Lebedeva V. M. - M.: Spark, 2001.

11. Brilliantov A.V. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (article-by-article): in 2 volumes - 2nd ed. — Moscow: Prospekt 2016.

12. Vaulina T.I. author of the chapter. Criminal law. A special part. Textbook for universities / Rep. Ed. Kazachenko I. Ya., Neznamova Z. A., Novoselov G. P.. M.: INFRA-M, 1997.

13. Dolgolenko T.V. Crimes against life and health: textbook. — Moscow: Prospekt, 2016.

14. Dyadyun K. Qualification of the murder of a woman who is known to be pregnant by the perpetrator // Criminal Law. 2011. No. 5.

15. Kirichenko V. F. The meaning of error in Soviet criminal law. - M. Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1952.

16. Korobeev A.I. Criminal attacks on human life and health: monograph. M.: Yurlitinform, 2012.

17. Lukyanov V.V. Criminal law of Russia. Special part / ed. Kropacheva N. M., Volzhenkina B. V., Boytsova A. I. - St. Petersburg. Publishing House St. Petersburg. university. 2010.

18. Makrinskaya V. I. Issues of criminal legal protection of the right to life (comparative legal aspects). M., 2006.

19. Popov A. N. Crimes against the person under mitigating circumstances. - St. Petersburg: Legal. Center Press, 2001.

20. Prokhorov A. Yu. Factual error: prospects for regulation in the criminal legislation of Russia // Russian investigator. 2014. No. 9

21. Rarog A.I. Qualification of crimes based on subjective criteria. - St. Petersburg, Legal. Center Press, 2003.

22. Smirnov V. A. Some issues of using signs of the subjective side of a crime when constructing qualified murder charges // Legal problems of strengthening Russian statehood: collection. Art. — Part 54 / Editorial Board. S. A. Eliseev and others - Tomsk: Publishing house Tom. University, 2012.

23. Tkachenko V.V., Tkachenko S.V. Criminal liability for murder: Monograph. - M.: INFRA-M, 2016.

24. Yakushin V. A. Subjective imputation and its significance in criminal law. - Tolyatti. TolPi Publishing House, 1998.

25. Semerneva N.K. Qualification of crimes (general and special parts): Scientific and practical manual. M.: Prospekt, Ekaterinburg: Publishing house of the Ural State Law Academy, 2011. - P. 212.

26. Criminal law. Special part: Textbook for universities / Rep. ed. Kozachenko I.Ya., Neznamova Z.A., Novoselov G.P. – M.: INFRA-M, 1997. – P. 55.

27. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. – 1965. – No. 11. – P. 9.

28. Krasikov A.N. Crimes against the human right to life. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1999. P. - 93.

Key terms
(automatically generated)
: Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, pregnant woman, state of pregnancy, Criminal Code of the RSFSR, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, guilty, criminal liability, life, completed crime, murder of a woman.