Summary
The Court of Cassation examined decisions concerning a dispute that arose between the parties due to an inheritance lawsuit. It found no legal violation in the convictions and acquittals rendered in respect of some of the offences of insult, threats, simple injury and damage to property; the appeals were dismissed and those judgments were upheld. However, the acquittal of one defendant for the offence of insult was quashed. The reason was that the witness stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had insulted the complainant by saying, “Enough already, you scoundrel…”; however, the witness gave a different account at the hearing. The court of first instance rendered an acquittal without resolving the contradiction between these two statements or explaining why it had preferred one statement over the other. Consequently, the Court of Cassation upheld most of the judgments but quashed, for insufficient reasoning, the acquittal concerning the offence of insult, which had been rendered without adequately assessing the contradiction between the witness statements.
Subject Matter of the Dispute
In the case concerning the alleged incidents in which the participating defendant ........, who was tried for the offences of threats and insult, and the participating defendant ...., who was tried for the offence of insult, were convicted; the participating defendants ....... were acquitted of insult and bodily injury, the participating defendant ...... was acquitted of damage to property and threats, and the judgment was appealed on points of law by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor, the case file was examined and the following was considered:In the argument that arose between the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, it was alleged that the participating defendants ...... insulted and injured the participating defendant ....., that the participating defendant ..... damaged property and insulted and threatened the participating defendant ....., and that the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threats, against ..... for insult, threats and damage to property, against ..... for insult and minor bodily injury, and against ....... for minor bodily injury;
No error was found in the court's acceptance that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult and bodily injury, that the participating defendant ....... had committed bodily injury, that the participating defendant ..... had committed damage to property and threats, that the participating defendant ....... had committed insult and threats, or that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, the court's conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the outcome of the prosecution, and the contents of the case file examined, the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor are hereby dismissed and the judgments are UPHELD;
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offence of insult;
Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you dishonourable person; because of you, we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the participating defendant ...... stated that he had merely tried to separate the parties. Accordingly, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved, and which of the witness's statements was given precedence and for what reason should have been discussed and explained in a proper manner; instead, an acquittal was rendered in the written form on insufficient grounds,
This was contrary to law, and since the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found justified, the judgment is hereby QUASHED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which remains applicable under Article 8 of Law No. 5320; decided unanimously on 26/01/2016.
Court of Cassation Assessment
In the case concerning the alleged incidents in which the participating defendant ........, who was tried for the offences of threats and insult, and the participating defendant ...., who was tried for the offence of insult, were convicted; the participating defendants ....... were acquitted of insult and bodily injury, the participating defendant ...... was acquitted of damage to property and threats, and the judgment was appealed on points of law by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor, the case file was examined and the following was considered:In the argument that arose between the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, it was alleged that the participating defendants ...... insulted and injured the participating defendant ....., that the participating defendant ..... damaged property and insulted and threatened the participating defendant ....., and that the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threats, against ..... for insult, threats and damage to property, against ..... for insult and minor bodily injury, and against ....... for minor bodily injury;
No error was found in the court's acceptance that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult and bodily injury, that the participating defendant ....... had committed bodily injury, that the participating defendant ..... had committed damage to property and threats, that the participating defendant ....... had committed insult and threats, or that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, the court's conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the outcome of the prosecution, and the contents of the case file examined, the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor are hereby dismissed and the judgments are UPHELD;
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offence of insult;
Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you dishonourable person; because of you, we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the participating defendant ...... stated that he had merely tried to separate the parties. Accordingly, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved, and which of the witness's statements was given precedence and for what reason should have been discussed and explained in a proper manner; instead, an acquittal was rendered in the written form on insufficient grounds,
This was contrary to law, and since the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found justified, the judgment is hereby QUASHED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which remains applicable under Article 8 of Law No. 5320; decided unanimously on 26/01/2016.
Key Points
In the case concerning the alleged incidents in which the participating defendant ........, who was tried for the offences of threats and insult, and the participating defendant ...., who was tried for the offence of insult, were convicted; the participating defendants ....... were acquitted of insult and bodily injury, the participating defendant ...... was acquitted of damage to property and threats, and the judgment was appealed on points of law by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor, the case file was examined and the following was considered:In the argument that arose between the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, it was alleged that the participating defendants ...... insulted and injured the participating defendant ....., that the participating defendant ..... damaged property and insulted and threatened the participating defendant ....., and that the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threats, against ..... for insult, threats and damage to property, against ..... for insult and minor bodily injury, and against ....... for minor bodily injury;
No error was found in the court's acceptance that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult and bodily injury, that the participating defendant ....... had committed bodily injury, that the participating defendant ..... had committed damage to property and threats, that the participating defendant ....... had committed insult and threats, or that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, the court's conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the outcome of the prosecution, and the contents of the case file examined, the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor are hereby dismissed and the judgments are UPHELD;
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offence of insult;
Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you dishonourable person; because of you, we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the participating defendant ...... stated that he had merely tried to separate the parties. Accordingly, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved, and which of the witness's statements was given precedence and for what reason should have been discussed and explained in a proper manner; instead, an acquittal was rendered in the written form on insufficient grounds,
This was contrary to law, and since the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found justified, the judgment is hereby QUASHED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which remains applicable under Article 8 of Law No. 5320; decided unanimously on 26/01/2016.
Conclusion
In the case concerning the alleged incidents in which the participating defendant ........, who was tried for the offences of threats and insult, and the participating defendant ...., who was tried for the offence of insult, were convicted; the participating defendants ....... were acquitted of insult and bodily injury, the participating defendant ...... was acquitted of damage to property and threats, and the judgment was appealed on points of law by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor, the case file was examined and the following was considered:In the argument that arose between the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, it was alleged that the participating defendants ...... insulted and injured the participating defendant ....., that the participating defendant ..... damaged property and insulted and threatened the participating defendant ....., and that the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threats, against ..... for insult, threats and damage to property, against ..... for insult and minor bodily injury, and against ....... for minor bodily injury;
No error was found in the court's acceptance that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult and bodily injury, that the participating defendant ....... had committed bodily injury, that the participating defendant ..... had committed damage to property and threats, that the participating defendant ....... had committed insult and threats, or that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, the court's conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the outcome of the prosecution, and the contents of the case file examined, the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor are hereby dismissed and the judgments are UPHELD;
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offence of insult;
Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you dishonourable person; because of you, we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the participating defendant ...... stated that he had merely tried to separate the parties. Accordingly, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved, and which of the witness's statements was given precedence and for what reason should have been discussed and explained in a proper manner; instead, an acquittal was rendered in the written form on insufficient grounds,
This was contrary to law, and since the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found justified, the judgment is hereby QUASHED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which remains applicable under Article 8 of Law No. 5320; decided unanimously on 26/01/2016.
Decision Text / Reproduction
In the case concerning the alleged incidents in which the participating defendant ........, who was tried for the offences of threats and insult, and the participating defendant ...., who was tried for the offence of insult, were convicted; the participating defendants ....... were acquitted of insult and bodily injury, the participating defendant ...... was acquitted of damage to property and threats, and the judgment was appealed on points of law by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor, the case file was examined and the following was considered:In the argument that arose between the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, it was alleged that the participating defendants ...... insulted and injured the participating defendant ....., that the participating defendant ..... damaged property and insulted and threatened the participating defendant ....., and that the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threats, against ..... for insult, threats and damage to property, against ..... for insult and minor bodily injury, and against ....... for minor bodily injury;
No error was found in the court's acceptance that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult and bodily injury, that the participating defendant ....... had committed bodily injury, that the participating defendant ..... had committed damage to property and threats, that the participating defendant ....... had committed insult and threats, or that the participating defendant ...... had committed insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the decision, the court's conviction and discretion formed in accordance with the outcome of the prosecution, and the contents of the case file examined, the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor are hereby dismissed and the judgments are UPHELD;
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offence of insult;
Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you dishonourable person; because of you, we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the participating defendant ...... stated that he had merely tried to separate the parties. Accordingly, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved, and which of the witness's statements was given precedence and for what reason should have been discussed and explained in a proper manner; instead, an acquittal was rendered in the written form on insufficient grounds,
This was contrary to law, and since the appeals on points of law filed by the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found justified, the judgment is hereby QUASHED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which remains applicable under Article 8 of Law No. 5320; decided unanimously on 26/01/2016.