The Surkhandarya Regional Court commented on the mitigation of the sentence in a case involving a fatal conflict at a farmers' market in Shurchi District. The court emphasized that punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the defendant's level of danger to society.
In an official statement, the court noted that the legality, validity, and fairness of the judicial decisions in this case will be assessed by the cassation instance court.
The court stressed that punishment or other legal measures against a person found guilty of a crime must be just—meaning they should correspond to the gravity of the act, degree of guilt, and level of public danger. These factors were considered by the criminal judicial panel during the appellate review, where legally provided mitigations were granted to the convicted individuals.
The statement reported that the testimony of the victim's legal representative, N. Tangirov, was examined. His claims were not corroborated by surveillance camera footage seized from the scene and included in the case as material evidence on DVD discs.
Consequently, the judicial panel deemed N. Tangirov's testimony, given during the preliminary investigation, first instance trial, and appeal, inadmissible as evidence. The court also found it necessary to notify the prosecutor's office under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a legal assessment of possible knowingly false testimony.
Additionally, a private ruling was issued against senior investigator K. Saidov of the Surkhandarya Regional Prosecutor's Office's Department for Investigation of Particularly Serious Crimes, who conducted the preliminary investigation. The ruling demands strict adherence to the norms of the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, as well as clarifications from the Plenum of the Supreme Court when qualifying crimes. The document has been sent to the regional prosecutor.
A private ruling was also issued to the chairman of the Shurchi District Court for Criminal Cases for violations committed during the first instance review. It highlighted the need to ensure the legality and validity of decisions and to increase attention when handling cases of this category.
It was noted that on February 23, the victim's legal representative and his defense lawyer filed a cassation appeal, expressing disagreement with the appellate instance's decision. The appeal is currently being processed for review by the judicial panel.
Previously, it was reported that in Surkhandarya Region, the appellate court reclassified the charge from intentional murder to hooliganism and intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in death, thereby mitigating the imposed sentence.
Source: kun.uz