According to the testimony of witnesses and data from surveillance cameras, it was possible to establish a picture of what happened. Two girls were swinging on a balancing swing. At some point, the daughter of the person involved in the case began to fall, but the man managed to catch her. Angry, he forced the second child to sit on the swing again, and then hit them with force. Because of this, the girl fell and hit herself.
The court of first instance convicted the man under Article 116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on beatings from hooligan motives and sentenced him to four months of conditional correctional labor with withholding 20% of earnings in favor of the state, with a probation period of 6 months.
According to the court, the attacker could not ensure the safety of his daughter and "decided to deal" with an innocent child. The appeal ruling was rejected, RAPSI writes.
However, the man did not agree with the court's decision. He stated that he did not try to throw the girl off the swing, but committed the act because of dislike for the child, as he decided that she was to blame for what happened.
The Court of Cassation supported the man, overturned the conviction and stopped the proceedings, as it considered that there was no corpus delicti in his actions.
Opinions of the Supreme Court
Having studied the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the attacker was aware of the consequences of his actions.
"The reason for attributing the intentional actions (of the person involved) to the category of hooliganism was that they were committed in the absence of any reason, using a minor reason," the court noted.
They also explained that hooliganism can be attributed to intentional actions directed against a person's personality or his property, which were committed without a good reason or for a minor reason.
"At the same time, in order to correctly establish these motives in the case of violent acts committed by the perpetrator during a quarrel or a fight, the courts need to find out who initiated them, whether the conflict was provoked to use it as a reason to commit illegal actions. If the instigator of the quarrel or fight was the victim, as well as in the case when the reason for the conflict was his illegal behavior, the person is not liable for committing a crime against such a victim from hooligan motives," the Supreme Court considers.
At the same time, at the time of the incident, the girl's actions did not go beyond the game. The man himself overlooked his child.
"Under such circumstances, the magistrate reasonably rejected the arguments (of the accused) about the hostile motive of his actions and came to the correct conclusion that his actions were committed out of hooligan motives. Thus, the verdict of the justice of the peace is justified, the actions (of the person involved) are given the correct qualification, the punishment is imposed in compliance with the requirements of the criminal law," the Supreme Court explained.As a result, the cassation decision was canceled and the guilty verdict was left unchanged.