Article 108. Murder committed by exceeding the limits of necessary defense or by exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition:

Article 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Murder committed by exceeding the limits of necessary defense or by exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime

1. Murder committed when exceeding the limits of necessary defense, -

shall be punishable by correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for the same term.

2. Murder committed by exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime -

shall be punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term.

Return to the table of contents of the document: Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the latest edition

Comments on Article 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Article 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for the commission of two independent crimes:

• murder committed when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded;
• murder committed while exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime.

Object of crime . The immediate object of these two crimes is human life.

The objective side is expressed in action aimed at taking life. The elements of crimes are material.

The subjective side of murder under Art. 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is characterized by guilt in the form of sudden direct or indirect intent. Causing death by negligence by exceeding the limits of necessary defense or by exceeding the measures necessary to apprehend the person who committed the crime does not entail criminal liability.

The subject of the crime provided for in Art. 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, general - a sane individual who has reached the age of sixteen. Murder when exceeding the limits of necessary defense or the limits of measures necessary to detain a person who has committed a crime committed by a person aged fourteen to fifteen years does not entail criminal liability

On the concept of necessary defense and exceeding its limits, see Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and comments to it.

On the concept of causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime and exceeding the limits necessary for detention, see Article 38 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and comments to it.

Explanations on the application by courts of legislation on necessary defense and causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime are contained in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012 No. 19.

Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
• Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
• Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
• Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 38-АПУ17-2 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 38-АПУ17-2 APPEAL DECISION Moscow March 1, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court...
• Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
• Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 72-АПУ17-1 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-АПУ17-1 APPEAL DECISION Moscow February 2, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
• Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2016 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
• Appeal ruling: Judicial Collegium for... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION APPEAL DECISION dated July 11, 2022 N 7-APU19-5SP Judicial Collegium for criminal cases of the Supreme Court...

Killing beyond the limits of necessary defense

Murder in excess of the limits of necessary defense assumes that the perpetrator acted with the right to the necessary defense, but exceeded its limits.

The Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012 N 19 draws attention to circumstances that exclude liability for exceeding the limits of necessary defense, i.e. for intentionally causing death or serious harm:

1) repelling an attack involving violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of using such violence (Part 1 of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

2) the consequences occurred due to the unexpectedness of the attack (Part 2.1 of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

3) the limits of necessary defense were not exceeded (Part 2 of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Socially dangerous attack involving violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person

In paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of September 27, 2012 N 19, under socially dangerous encroachment associated with violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, it is proposed to understand an act that, at the time of its commission, created a real danger to the life of the defender or another person. The presence of such an encroachment may be evidenced, in particular, by:

• causing harm to health that creates a real threat to the life of the defender or another person (for example, injury to vital organs);
• the use of a method of assault that creates a real threat to the life of the defender or another person (use of weapons or objects used as weapons, strangulation, arson, etc.).

An immediate threat of violence that is dangerous to the life of the defender or another person can be expressed, in particular, in statements about the intention to immediately cause death or harm to health to the defender or another person, dangerous to life, demonstrations to the attacker of weapons or objects used as weapons, explosive devices if, taking into account the specific situation, there were grounds to fear that this threat would be carried out.

The unexpectedness of the attacker's actions

In paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 19 of September 27, 2012, the Plenum also indicated that when clarifying the question of whether the actions of the attacker were unexpected for the person defending himself, as a result of which the defender could not objectively assess the degree and nature of the danger of the attack (Part 2.1 of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ), the court should take into account the time, place, setting and method of the attack, the events preceding the attack, as well as the emotional state of the person defending himself (state of fear, fright, confusion at the time of the attack, etc.). For example, an attack committed at night with penetration into a home, when the defending person, in a state of fright, was unable to objectively assess the degree and nature of the danger of such an attack, may be recognized as unexpected.

An assault involving violence that is not dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence

Clause 3 of the Resolution No. 19 dated September 27, 2012 reveals the concept of an assault involving violence that is not dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence. It is against such an encroachment that it is possible to exceed the limits of necessary defense if the encroachment was not unexpected. The Plenum gave an approximate list of such attacks (beatings, causing minor or moderate harm to health, robbery committed with the use of violence not dangerous to life or health), and also indicated that these could be any intentional and careless acts provided for by the Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, although not associated with violence, however, taking into account their content, can be prevented or suppressed by causing harm to the offender.

Exceeding the limits of necessary defense

In paragraph 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012 N 19, attention is drawn to the fact that “criminal liability for causing harm occurs for the defender only if the limits of necessary defense are exceeded, i.e. when it is established in the case that the defender resorted to protection from the attack specified in Part 2 of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in such ways and means, the use of which was clearly not caused by the nature and danger of the attack, and unnecessarily intentionally caused the offender serious harm to health or death. At the same time, liability for exceeding the limits of necessary defense occurs only in the case when it is established in the case that the defender was aware that he was causing harm that was not necessary to prevent or suppress a specific socially dangerous attack.”

Thus, exceeding the limits of necessary defense is the deliberate, conscious infliction of death or grievous harm on the offender, when this was not caused by the nature and danger of the attack.

What circumstances are taken into account to conclude that there are signs of necessary defense?

In paragraph 13 of Resolution No. 19 of September 27, 2012, the Plenum recommends deciding whether there are signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense on the basis of a number of circumstances. In particular, such as the object of the attack, the method chosen by the offender to achieve the result, the severity of the consequences that could occur if the attack was completed, the presence of the need to cause death or serious harm to health to prevent or suppress the attack, the place and time of the attack, the unexpectedness of the attack, the number of persons who encroached and defended themselves, the presence of weapons or other objects used as weapons, the ability of the defending person to repel the attack. In addition, the Plenum recommends that the issue of exceeding the limits of necessary defense be resolved on the basis of any other circumstances that could affect the real balance of forces between the attacker and the defender.

Conditions for recognizing signs of necessary defense in a person’s actions when the method and means of defense are disproportional

Not every discrepancy between protective measures and the nature and danger of the attack can be considered an excess of the limits of necessary defense. In paragraph 14 of the Resolution No. 19 dated September 27, 2012, it is explained that the person defending himself, due to the emotional disturbance caused by the attack, cannot always correctly assess the nature and danger of the attack and, as a result, choose a proportionate method and means of defense. Therefore, the actions of the person defending cannot be considered as committed in excess of the limits of necessary defense if the harm caused, although it turned out to be greater than the harm prevented, but in causing the harm there was no obvious discrepancy between the protective measures and the nature and danger of the attack.

In what case is an act considered committed in a state of necessary defense?

An act is considered committed in a state of necessary defense, without exceeding its limits, if the defending person caused the offender:

• by negligence any harm, including careless causing of death;
• intentional harm to health, not exceeding the limits of moderate severity inclusive (infliction of physical pain, blows, beatings, intentional minor harm to health, imprisonment);
• death or serious harm to health, if this corresponded to the nature and degree of public danger of the attack.

The presence of aggravating circumstances under Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The presence of circumstances provided for in clauses “a”, “d”, “e”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not exclude the qualification of an act as committed when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded or in a state of necessary defense. The presence of other aggravating circumstances, Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code does not allow the act to be qualified in this way, since it implies the absence of a state of necessary defense.

Why do you need a criminal lawyer?

First of all, because investigators often classify killings that exceed the limits of defense as “just murder.” According to Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Murder”, that is, and there is from 6 to 15 years in prison. This happens for several reasons:

• the punitive orientation of the “bodies”, and not the human rights one;
• it is more profitable for the investigator to submit the case to court under a more serious article, rather than under a less serious one;
• The state is generally wary of people who defend themselves. In the event of an attack, it is better to call for help from the state in the person of the police than to defend yourself. This is how the state “reasons.”

It takes clear and subtle work of an experienced criminal lawyer so that the article is not changed to Article 105. But this is not the only reason why you need to seek assistance from an experienced lawyer, because he:

• is present at investigative actions: interrogations, searches, confrontations and ensures that your rights are not violated;
• collects evidence in your interests. For example, finding witnesses and convincing them to come to court to support you;
• seeks the cancellation or mitigation of the preventive measure;
• organizes a forensic examination from an independent expert, and not from a departmental one;
• makes efforts to exclude from the case evidence collected by the investigator in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
• represents your interests in court.

Conviction under Art. 108 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Case no.

PRI G O V O R

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DD.MM.YYYY N.Novgorod

Judge of the Prioksky District Court of N. Novgorod Astafieva M.A.

with the participation of senior pom. prosecutor of the Prioksky district of N. Novgorod Ukhova K.I., assistant prosecutor of the Prioksky district of N. Novgorod Gosenov T.M.,

defense represented by the lawyer of the Prioksky district law firm, Yu.V. Monastyrskaya, who presented certificate No. and warrant No., defendant Manukyan G.F., victim O***K.L.-Z..,

under the secretary: Kuznetsova A.V.,

having examined in open court a criminal case on charges

Manukyan G.F., DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native of <data taken>, citizen of <data taken>, having <data taken> education, divorced, with a young child, registered at the address: < data seized>, registered in N. Novgorod at the address: <address>, residing at the address: <address>, working for an individual entrepreneur <data seized>., no previous convictions,

in committing a crime under Art. 108 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

U S T A N O V I L :

Manukyan G.F. committed a murder committed in excess of the limits of necessary defense. This crime was committed under the following circumstances:

DD.MM.YYYY in the period from 18 to 19 hours, previously acquaintances Manukyan G.F., E***A.S., O***V.V., O***E.L.-Z . and K***I.N. were in garage box No. GK “<data taken>” at the address: <data taken>, where Manukyan G.F. and E***A.S. drank alcoholic drinks. About 19 hours between Manukyan G.F. and O***E.L.-Z.. in the premises of the said garage, a conflict arose on the basis of personal hostile relations, during which O***E.L.-Z.. took out from under the jacket he was wearing the him with an air pistol and fired, from a distance of more than 4 meters, several shots in the direction of G.F. Manukyan. After this, the defendant took a knife from a chair located in the garage and, exceeding the limits of necessary defense, namely, without using the opportunity to choose otherwise , a less dangerous method of defense, and, realizing that his actions clearly do not correspond to the actions of O*** E.L.-Z.., as well as the fact that the pistol is pneumatic, that is, a non-lethal weapon and not intended for lethal defeat, realistically assessing the current situation, acting deliberately, realizing the social danger of their actions, anticipating the possibility of socially dangerous consequences in the form of the death of O***E.L.-Z.., not wanting, but consciously allowing death to be caused, fearing for one’s own health, deliberately inflicted a knife on O***E.L.-Z.. three blows to the chest and two blows to the left shoulder and forearm. O***E.L.-Z.. with the injuries he received ran out of the garage into the street and, falling to the ground, died at the scene.

By his actions, Manukyan G.F. caused O***E.L.-Z.. <data taken> Stab injuries to the chest, both individually and in combination, caused grievous harm to health on the grounds of danger to life. There is a direct causal relationship between stab injuries to the chest and the immediate cause of death.

Defendant Manukyan G.F. He fully admitted his guilt in committing the crime and explained that while he was in a garage located not far from OJSC “<data taken>”, he inflicted several blows with a knife on the body of O***E.L.-Z, previously known to him... Details The defendant does not remember the circumstances of the crime, because he was in a stressful state from what was happening. Between Manukyan G.F. and O***E.L.-Z.. previously a conflict arose over what the defendant had distributed in relation to E***A.S. defamatory of the latest information. The defendant DD.MM.YYYY came to the garage of his friend O***V.V., bringing with him alcohol and food. After some time, O***E.L.-Z.. and E***A.S. came there. The defendant offered everyone present a drink of vodka, to which only E***A.S. agreed. In the garage O***E.L.-Z. began to accuse the defendant of speaking badly about E***A.S., claiming that he spent the night in the entrances, while the latter did not interfere in the conflict. Then O***E.L.-Z. took out a pistol and fired several shots at G.F. Manukyan. O***V.V. at this time he tried to stop the actions of O***E.L.-Z.., but the latter did not stop firing shots. Manukyan G.F. grabbed a knife lying on a chair. At some point in the struggle Manukyan G.F. found himself lying on the floor of the garage, O***E.L.-Z. approached the defendant with a gun. Manukyan G.F. told O***E.L.-Z.. not to come closer and hit him on the legs, then stood up, grabbed the victim by the clothes, and pulled him towards himself. First, the knife was in the right hand, then G.F. Manukyan. shifted it to the right and struck several blows to the chest, while the distance between the defendant and the victim was about a meter. The defendant had no intentions to commit murder, he only wanted to stop the actions of O***E.L.-Z.., who used the weapon, because he was afraid for his life, assuming that the pistol that was used was a military one.

At the court hearing, expert L***V.A., who carried out a forensic medical examination of the corpse of O***E.L.-Z, was interrogated... The expert informed the court that under the circumstances described by the defendant, the possibility of causing injuries that existed at O***E.L.-Z...

In addition, the wines of Manukyan G.F. the commission of a crime is confirmed by the testimony of the victim and witnesses.

Victim O***E.L.-Z. testified that O***E.L.-Z. was his brother. O***E.L.-Z.. was previously acquainted with the defendant and communicated with him. After property was stolen from the victim’s apartment, O***E.L.-Z. suggested that G.F. Manukyan could have done this, and therefore the victim stopped contacting the defendant. O***E.L.-Z. it was known that his brother had a negative attitude towards the defendant due to the fact that the latter disseminated information that E***A.S., previously known to them. leads a wandering lifestyle. O***E.L.-Z. knew that DD.MM.YYYY after work his brother with E***A.S. will go to the garage of O***V.V.. In the evening, to the cell phone of O***E.L.-Z. called E***A.S. and asked to come urgently, but did not tell the exact location of the garage, so the victim was unable to fulfill the witness’s request. The next day O***E.L.-Z. reported that his brother died from stab wounds. The victim believes that the defendant deliberately killed O***E.L.-Z.

Witness O***V.V. testified that he rents a garage in the garage cooperative “<data taken>”, which is located near. In this garage O***V.V. engages in car repairs. O***V.V. previously knew the defendant, O***E.L.-Z. and E***A.S.. O***V.V. DD.MM.YYYY together with K***I.N. repaired a car in the garage. On this day O***V.V. called E***A.S. and warned that he would come to discuss the issue of vehicle repair. In the evening, G.F. Manukyan also arrived at the garage, bringing with him alcohol and a snack, which he laid out on a chair. The defendant cut the food with a knife he had in the garage. Then O***E.L.-Z came to the garage. and E***A.S.. At the same time, E. behaved nervously. Proposal of Manukyan G.F. E***A.S., O***E.L.-Z. took a drink of alcohol. — ignored. Further between Manukyan G.F. and O***E.L.-Z. there was a conflict over the fact that the defendant, in the presence of the victim, said that E***A.S. spends the night in hallways in dirty clothes. Manukyan G.F. explained that he did not say such a thing, while O***E.L.-Z. claimed that he himself directly heard these statements from the defendant. The defendant’s words angered O***E.L.-Z.., which was clear from his behavior. O***E.L.-Z.. took out a pistol from under his jacket and pointed it at Manukyan G.F.. E***A.S. grabbed the hand of O***E.L.-Z. and pointed it upward. O***V.V. ran up to O***E.L.-Z. and pressed him against the closet. At this time O***E.L.-Z. started shooting. O***V.V. demanded to stop firing shots. Manukyan G.F. and E***A.S. left the garage, and O***V.V. stayed there to talk with the victim. O***E.L.-Z. broke free and ran out into the street. After O***E.L.-Z. began to shoot at G.F. Manukyan, the defendant ran into the garage. O***V.V. felt dizzy because his right arm was injured and there was significant bleeding. O***V.V. realized that he had been hit by a bullet and left the garage. Then from the garage O***V.V. heard screams, went in and saw that O***E.L.-Z. lies on Manukyan G.F.. O***V.V. and E***A.S. raised O***E.L.-Z. and took him outside. Since O***V.V. After being wounded, he felt unwell, K***I.N. helped him get to Ave. <data taken>. On the way, the defendant caught up with them and reported that O***E.L.-Z. got sick. O***V.V. got to the house, where L***A.A., who lived with him, bandaged his hand. Then O***V.V. decided that he should seek medical help and took a taxi to hospital No. on Ave. <data taken>. Since O***V.V. There were no documents granting the right to receive medical care, he turned to the doctor unofficially. At the specified medical institution, the woman underwent O***V.V. injection and took the balls out of the wound. Then O***V.V. left the hospital and went to visit a relative at <address>, where he underwent further treatment. The next day O***V.V. G.F. Manukyan called, a relative of the witness suggested that the defendant come and seek legal assistance. Manukyan G.F. arrived at the "address", from where he and his lawyer returned to Nizhny Novgorod in order to give evidence. O***V.V. explained that the defendant’s character is not conflicting, Manukyan G.F. stabbed O***E.L.-Z. solely for self-defense purposes. The pistol that O***E.L.-Z.. used was black, the barrel length was about 15-20 cm, it did not look like a Makarov pistol.

Witness E***A.S. testified that he had previously known Manukyan G.F., O***E.L.-Z.. and O***V.V.. O***E.L.-Z. DD.MM.YYYY called E***A.S. and reported that Manukyan G.F. spreads rumors about the vagabond lifestyle of E***A.S.. O***E.L.-Z. proposed to clarify the relationship with G.F. Manukyan. E***A.S. on the same day he called the defendant and offered to meet with him. Manukyan G.F. said that he would go to the garage of O***V.V.. In the evening E***A.S. and O***E.L.-Z. We went to this garage, where O***V.V., his employee and G.F. Manukyan were located. In the garage O***E.L.-Z. did not greet G.F. Manukyan. The defendant and E***A.S. drank vodka, then the latter asked whether the defendant said that E***A.S. leads a wandering lifestyle. Manukyan G.F. He denied everything, but O***E.L.-Z. said that in order for the defendant to confess everything, obscene language should be used. Further O***E.L.-Z. pointed the gun at the defendant. E***A.S. ran up to O***E.L.-Z. and moved his hand with the gun up. Where did the victim get the gun, E***A.S. didn't pay attention. O***V.V. pressed O***E.L.-Z. towards the cabinets, at that moment a shot was heard. E***A.S. together with Manukyan G.F. went out into the street, followed by O***V.V.. O***E.L.-Z. also went outside and again pointed the gun at G.F. Manukyan. O***V.V. and E***A.S. pressed O***E.L.-Z. to the snowdrift, while Manukyan G.F. ran into the garage again. In the garage of E***A.S. and O***V.V. saw that Manukyan G.F. and the victim fight on the floor. E***A.S. raised O***E.L.-Z.., who was holding a pistol in his hand, and asked him to go home. The victim was sitting behind the garage, and his hand was covered in blood. The defendant and E***A.S. They took the victim into the garage. O***E.L.-Z. felt bad. The defendant called an ambulance, then ran to look for a car, returned in a GAZelle, the driver of which said that O***E.L.-Z. dead.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness K***I.N was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), who told the investigator that he and an Armenian named V. were repairing cars in a garage cooperative at <address>. V.’s friends, Armenians by nationality, came to the garage. DD.MM.YYYY A Peugeot 406 station wagon, dark blue in color, was delivered to the garage for repairs. K***I.N. V. straightened the hood and DD.MM.YYYY painted the hood. On this day, at about 5 p.m., G., V.’s friend, came, bringing vodka and a snack with him. G. and V. communicated in Armenian. After 30 minutes, two more Armenians came, K***I.N. I saw them earlier, they came to the garage - one of them was A., the second behaved nervously, walked from corner to corner, later K***I.N. I recognized his name - E.. The four of them stood and talked in Armenian. G. and A. drank vodka and continued the conversation. Gradually they began to raise their voices at each other. E. tried to start a fight with G., and he, in turn, also went at E.. V. and A. separated G. and E.. Then V. took G. out into the street. At that moment, E. with his right hand took out a pistol from under his jacket behind his back and began to shoot in the direction of G. and V.. After that, V. went into the garage, they talked about something and went out into the street. K***I.E. I again heard loud screams in Armenian, then at least three shots. Sounds similar to blows to the body were also heard. All this happened for about 15 minutes, then everything calmed down, V. came into the garage, with blood seeping from the right side of his down jacket. V. said that he was not feeling well. G. and A. stood near the gate, and E. lay on the left with his feet towards the gate, but did not utter any sounds. G. was holding a knife in his right hand, as far as K***I.N. noticed - folding, blade length about 10 cm, width at least 15 mm. G.’s hand was covered in blood, and the light sweatpants he was wearing were also covered in blood. A. had a pistol in his palms; it was covered in snow. The length of the pistol barrel was about 12 cm, it was all black, the edges of the bolt were rectangular, brand K***I.N. knows. K***I.N. took V. towards the avenue <data taken>, then returned to the garage in order to lock it. Near the garage K***I.N. I saw an all-metal GAZelle car, white, I didn’t remember the registration plate number, the windows were not tinted. At the wheel sat a man of Slavic appearance, with a mustache, looking 40-45 years old, wearing a black leather cap and a black leather jacket. G. and A. stood in the garage, they told K***I.N. close the garage, don't call anyone. After that, G. and A. left, and K***I.N. went home. K***I.N. didn’t approach E., doesn’t know whether he was alive or not. V. called K***I.N. asked not to tell anyone about what happened. Then, DD.MM.YYYY V. asked K***I.N. testify before the investigative committee. K***I.N. believes that E. killed G. because he was holding a knife in his bloody hand.

Witness G***N.I. explained to the court that he works as a security guard at LLC "<data taken>", which is located not far from the garage cooperative. G***N.I. DD.MM.YYYY was on duty. Around 20-21 hours, while G***N.I. was in the security room, two men of Caucasian nationality approached. These individuals inquired about how to call an ambulance from a mobile phone. G***N.I. replied that he did not know about it. These men walked along the road towards <address>, and then they went to the territory of the garage area. In one of the garage boxes of this cooperative, people of Armenian nationality were repairing cars. GAZelle car in an all-metal white body G***N.I. I didn’t see him, because he periodically went into the boiler room to keep the fire in the boiler going. The next day, in the morning, a man came up and, turning to the director of Kh***A.N., asked to call the police, because he had discovered the body of a man near the garages.

Witness Kh***A.N. testified that he is the founder of LLC "<data taken>", located at: <address> Kh***A.N. DD.MM.YYYY was at work in the morning. K H***A.N. An acquaintance named Vladimir came and reported that he had discovered the body of a man in the garage area. Opposite the gate of one of the boxes lay the corpse of a man.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness K***V.A was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), from which it follows that he rents garage box No. in the Group of Companies "<data taken>" at the address: <address>. At K***V.A. there is a Mitsubishi Fuso truck - a manipulator, which he parks near the garage box at night. K***V.A. DD.MM.YYYY at about 9 o'clock he came to pick up the car and, in order to turn around, drove to the outer garages. As he began to turn around, he noticed the corpse of a man opposite the gate of the garage box, one of whose arms was raised above the ground. K***V.A. got out of the car, approached the head of the base, Kh***A.N., with whom they approached and saw the body of a man, and then called the police. The corpse lay opposite the garage in which an Armenian by nationality, named V., worked.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness R***M.A was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), from which it follows that he works as a watchman at the GSK “<data taken>”. R***M.A. DD.MM.YYYY was on duty, which he took up at 6 p.m. that day. At approximately 18 o'clock R***M.A. went out to walk around the territory and returned to the lodge. At about 10 p.m., there was a strong knock on the door of the lodge - it was a man of Armenian nationality, who looked to be about 30 years old, of heavy build, about 180 cm tall. This man had a rag tied to his hand, with blood on it. The man smelled of alcohol and fell when he moved. The man asked R***M.A. about whether he has a car. Having received a negative answer, the man left the guardhouse; another man of Armenian nationality was waiting for him on the street; he looked thin and slightly taller than the first. About 30 minutes later, a white GAZelle car with an all-metal body drove past the planing site. After 15 minutes, this car drove back towards <address>, car number R***M.A. did not see.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness L***A.A was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), who reported that she lives together with O***V.V., who was unofficially engaged in car repairs in one of the garages of the Group of Companies "<data taken>", located at <address >. O***V.V. DD.MM.YYYY was in the garage during the day. In the evening of the same day, at approximately 21 o'clock, O***V.V. I returned home and was excited. His jacket was dirty from the back. L***A.A. I noticed that the right sleeve of the jacket was torn. O***V.V. He took off his jacket and threw it on the floor. L***A.A. I also noticed blood on the jacket. O***V.V. pressed his right hand to his chest and explained that he had been shot, but did not explain anything further. O***V.V. He was pale, perhaps because he was bleeding. O***V.V. He took off his sweatshirt and T-shirt, took a towel, which he used to press the wound on his hand. Next O***V.V. asked for a clean sweater, and then he left. O***V.V. DD.MM.YYYY called L***A.A. and said that he and Manukyan G.F. to the police that the latter killed someone. O***V.V. later he briefly spoke about the fact that between Manukyan G.F. and some other man there was a conflict during which someone shot, and O***V.V. separated them. O***V.V. he felt bad because they shot at him, so Kazakov, who was present during the conflict, helped him get to the “address” of the gas station.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness V***N.V. was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), who told the investigator that she lives with G.F. Manukyan. The defendant was engaged in car repairs together with his friend named V. in the garage at <address>. V***N.V. heard from Manukyan G.F. about a certain O. and his brother, that they are bad people. Manukyan G.F. DD.MM.YYYY at about 5 p.m. said V***N.V. that he went to V.’s garage. At about 7 p.m., G.F. Manukyan called her on her mobile phone, his voice was agitated and asked her to call an ambulance for a man who had been cut in the garage. V***N.V. she called 112 and asked for an ambulance to come, however, the dispatcher told her that they would not go anywhere without an address. Then V***N.V. Manukyan G.F. called. and asked to pick him up from a gas station near a public transport stop “<data taken>.” V***N.V. came for Manukyan G.F. in your car. In Manukyan G.F. the index finger of the left hand was cut and there was a wound on the head, in the left temporo-parietal region. Manukyan G.F. reported V***N.V. that a man and a friend came to their garage, he did not mention their names, and began shooting at them with a pistol. Who cut his finger, Manukyan G.F. didn't report. Manukyan G.F. also said that he tried to call an ambulance. When V***N.V. offered to return to the garage and help the victim, Manukyan G.F. made her understand that there was no need to help anyone anymore, that there was a corpse.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness Z***E.K. was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), from which it follows that he rented out his garage box No. in the Group of Companies "<data taken>" at the address: <address>, to a man who introduced himself to him as V.. This man worked with some young people were repairing cars. There were also many Armenians in the garage, whose names were Z***E.K. does not know.

With the consent of the parties, the testimony of witness P***V.O was read out at the court hearing. (<data taken>), who told the investigator that DD.MM.YYYY he met an Armenian named <data taken>, who was engaged in car repairs. Since P***V.O. got into a traffic accident in his Peugeot 406 dark blue car No., he needed to repair the vehicle, for which he turned to <data taken>. At the beginning of DD.MM.YYYY P***V.O. took the car to a garage box located at: <address>, where V. and two young men worked. Approximately DD.MM.YYYY P***V.O. I called V. and brought him money for the material. P***V.O. DD.MM.YYYY in the morning repeatedly called V. on his mobile phone <data taken>, but the subscriber was unreachable. In the evening P***V.O. came to the indicated garage to pick up the car. There were police officers in this garage who reported that the body of a man was found near this garage.

At the court hearing, as a specialist, the head of the ballistic examination department of the ECC <data taken> L***S.Yu. was interrogated, who explained that a shot from a pneumatic weapon with compressed gas at close range can damage clothing and skin.

In addition, the defendant’s guilt in committing a crime is confirmed by the materials of the case:

- the protocol of checking the testimony on the spot, during which the accused Manukyan G.F. indicated a place in the garage box No. of the garage cooperative "<data taken>", located at the address: <address>, where they named DD.MM.YYYY to the victim O***E.L.-Z. bodily injuries were inflicted in the form of stab wounds (<data taken>);

- protocol of verification of testimony on the spot of witness O***V.V. from DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that witness O***V.V. indicated a place in the garage box No. of the garage cooperative "<data taken>", located at the address: <address>, where DD.MM.YYYY between Manukyan G.F. and victims O***E.L.-Z. a conflict occurred, during which the victim fired a pneumatic pistol at G.F. Manukyan, and he inflicted O***E.L.-Z. bodily injuries in the form of stab wounds (<data taken>);

- a protocol for examining the scene of the incident from DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that on the territory of the Civil Code “<data taken>” at the address: <address>, near garage box No. the corpse of O*** E.L.-Z was found . with signs of violent death. The corpse was sent to <data seized> to establish the cause of death. Swabs of a brown substance and control samples were confiscated from the scene of the incident (<data confiscated>);

- a protocol for the inspection of objects dated DD.MM.YYYY, during which a jacket, jumper (jacket), T-shirt, tights, underpants, a pair of black socks, a pair of black shoes of the corpse O***E.L.-Z.., white were examined Manukyan G.F.'s sweatpants, 16 samples of a brown substance and 16 control samples (<data taken>);

- protocol of inspection of items dated DD.MM.YYYY, during which the medical card of O***V.V. was examined. This card was recognized and included as evidence in a criminal case <data seized>);

— document inspection protocol dated DD.MM.YYYY, during which documents were inspected containing data about the person, incoming and outgoing connections, addresses of base stations, following subscribers O***V.V., Manukyan G.F., O* **E.L.-Z.., K***I.N., V***N.V., using numbers: <data taken> contained on 23 sheets. According to connections from DD.MM.YYYY, i.e. on the day the crime was committed, the above persons repeatedly contacted each other. These documents were recognized and included as material evidence in a criminal case (<data seized>);

- expert opinion No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that the death of O***E.L., born in 1979, occurred from <data taken>

- expert’s conclusion No. DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that blood was found in the newspaper wash and in the wash 2 meters from the garage, as well as the surface layers of human skin. The origin of the above blood from the victim O***E.L.-Z.. (<data taken>) cannot be ruled out;

- expert conclusion No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that on the jacket, jumper, T-shirt and trousers O***E.L.-Z. human blood was found. The origin of the above blood from the accused G.F. Manukyan cannot be ruled out. and the victim O***E.L.-Z.. (<data taken>);

- expert’s conclusion No. DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that human blood was found in the swabs of a brown substance No. 1-7. The origin of the above blood from the victim O***E.L.-Z cannot be ruled out. (<data withdrawn>);

- expert conclusion No. DD.MM.YYYY, from which it follows that human blood was found on the swabs of a brown substance. The origin of the above blood from the victim O***E.L.-Z cannot be ruled out. and the accused Manukyan G.F. (<data taken>).

The court considered this body of evidence sufficient to convict the defendant of the crime.

Actions of Manukyan G.F. the court qualifies under Art. 108 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as murder committed when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded.

The fact of application by Manukyan G.F. DD.MM.YYYY stab wounds O***E.L.-Z. is confirmed directly by the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of witnesses O***V.V. and E***A.S. present in the garage. and K***I.N..

From the expert’s conclusion it follows that stab injuries to the chest of O***E.L.-Z. caused grievous bodily harm based on danger to life. Stab injuries to the chest were the immediate cause of death.

From the expert reports it follows that blood was found on the swabs taken from the scene of the incident, and its origin was attributed to the victim O***V.V. is not excluded. On the clothes of O***E.L.-Z. blood was found, the origin of which was from G.F. Manukyan. is not excluded.

About the intent of Manukyan G.F. the infliction of serious harm to health, dangerous to the life of O***E.L.-Z.., is evidenced by the nature and location of the latter’s bodily injuries, as well as the method of their infliction - by striking the body with a knife. Thus, the defendant foresaw the death of O***E.L.-Z...

The actions of the defendant in stabbing O***E.L.-Z. were committed when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded, which is confirmed by the testimony of the defendant and witnesses O***V.V., E***A.S. and K***I.N. that during the conflict O***E.L.-Z. took out a pistol and, pointing it at G.F. Manukyan, fired several shots. The fact that the applied O***E.L.-Z. the pistol is not a lethal weapon Manukyan G.F. did not know. The defendant could not choose a method of defense other than using a knife, since he really perceived the threat of death from O***E.L.-Z.., who was using a pistol. Thus, at the time of the conflict situation, the defendant believed that his life and health were in danger from O***E.L.-Z.., in connection with which Manukyan G.F., based on his subjective opinion, considered necessary to use a knife for self-defense.

The defendant's testimony is consistent with the explanations given to the court by expert L***V.A., who confirmed that the blows of O***E.L.-Z. could have been applied when described by G.F. Manukyan. circumstances.

Witnesses O***V.V., E***A.S. and K***I.N. there is no reason to report false information about the circumstances of what is happening, including the assertion that it was O***E.L.-Z who was the first to use a weapon (pistol) during the conflict. None of the above persons had any hostility towards O***E.L.-Z... On the contrary, O***E.L.-Z.. began a conflict with the defendant in order to protect the honor and dignity of E***A. S., whom the victim believed was Manukyan G.F. accused of an antisocial lifestyle. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the eyewitness testimony is reliable, consistent and thorough. This testimony is consistent with other evidence in the case. Specialist L***S.Yu. explained at the court hearing that a ball from a pneumatic weapon can damage human clothing and skin.

The victim’s arguments that the intention of Manukyan G.F. was aimed at intentionally causing the death of O***E.L.-Z. and the fact of exceeding the limits of necessary defense was not checked by the court, but was not confirmed. From the testimony of the defendant and witnesses O***V.V. and E***A.S. it follows that Manukyan G.F. there was no motive why he would want to kill O***E.L.-Z... At the same time, from the testimony of witness E***A.S. it follows that O***E.L.-Z. went to the garage in order to sort things out with the defendant.

Thus, the totality of the evidence collected and examined during the judicial investigation fully confirmed the accusation brought against G.F. Manukyan. preliminary investigation authorities.

When deciding on the imposition of punishment, the court, in accordance with Art. Art. 6, 60, 61, 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family.

The defendant committed a crime classified as minor.

How information about the personality of Manukyan G.F. the court takes into account his positive characteristics.

The court established mitigating circumstances for the punishment, the presence of a young child with the perpetrator, surrender and active assistance in solving the crime, as well as the illegality of the victim’s behavior, which was the reason for the crime. In addition, as mitigating circumstances, the court takes into account remorse for the crime and the transfer of funds to the victim to compensate for the harm.

No aggravating circumstances have been established.

Due to the presence of mitigating circumstances under Art. 61 part 1 paragraph “i” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the absence of aggravating circumstances, the court applies Art. 62 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Grounds for application of Art. 64, 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not available.

The fate of the material evidence was decided in accordance with the requirements of Art. 81 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Elected in relation to Manukyan G.F. the preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior should be maintained until the sentence enters into legal force.

Based on the above, guided by Art. Art. 307, 308, 309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

P R I G O V O R I L :

Manukyan G.F. found guilty of committing a crime under Art. 108 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and impose a punishment in the form of correctional labor for a period of ten months with deduction of ten percent monthly from wages to the state income.

Do not change the preventive measure until the sentence enters into legal force, leave it - a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior, and cancel it upon entry.

Upon entry into force of this verdict, the material evidence - a jacket, a jumper (jacket), a T-shirt, tights, underpants, two black socks, a pair of black shoes - should be handed over to the victim O***E.L.-Z..; blood of the corpse of O***E.L.-Z. - destroy: white sweatpants by G.F. Manukyan. - hand over to the defendant Manukyan G.F., destroy 16 samples of the brown substance and 16 control samples; documents containing information about the person, incoming and outgoing connections, addresses of base stations and a copy of the outpatient medical record of O***V.V. - store in case materials.

The verdict can be appealed to the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation.

If a cassation appeal is filed, the defendant has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the cassation court, which must be indicated in writing in the complaint.

JUDGE ASTAFYEVA M.A.