[ad_1]
Although the victim avoided injuries, the man holding the knife did not shirk his responsibility. The trial court found Vytautas P. guilty and sentenced him to two and a half years in prison.
The man who denied guilt assured that the victim had afflicted him because he was seeking to recover the beloved woman with whom Vytautas P. had lived for some time. Therefore, an appeal was filed. However, after examination, the Šiauliai Regional Court only confirmed that the sentence imposed on Vytautas P. was correct.
A resident of Joniškis was convicted of the fact that in 2020. On the night of December 20, intoxicated with alcohol, he intentionally stabbed the victim VK in the side with a knife in the hallway of the residential house.
It was recognized that in this way the man endeavored to disturb the health of the other person. However, Vytautas P. did not end the crime due to circumstances beyond his control. Because the victim also avoided the puncture by stepping back and grabbing the hand of the man who had fallen on him.
Love triangle?
Vytautas P. filed an appeal with the court, requesting the annulment of the previous conviction and the acquittal. In the man’s view, the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence was incorrect, and this had a material effect on the court’s findings of his guilt and conviction.
The defendant stated that he had not confessed either during the investigation or at the judicial hearing about the crime of which the defendant had committed the crime for not having committed the crime.
He added that VK, who had been recognized as a victim, wanted his partner back in every way, so he falsely afflicted him. Vytautas P. noted on appeal that disagreements between him and VK have continued since the victim’s former partner began to communicate with him.
Vytautas P. said that on the day of the event he cut firewood and took out the knife from the firewood, because he promised to go cut the oats. Always keep the knife hidden behind the sleeve of the jacket because it is very comfortable for him. Since he was drunk, he completely forgot about the knife.
Then he went to the house of the mother of the aforementioned woman and wanted to try to take the partner home again. He went and knocked on the door, but opened it. VK When asked to invite the woman, he said he would not go anywhere.
“Angry, I groaned with my hand, saying ‘go away, silly’ and at that moment the knife on my sleeve poked out. At first I didn’t see the knife come out. But then VK grabbed my arm and threw me to the ground. I did not hit the victim with a knife, I did not want to hurt him or hurt him in any way, ”Vytautas P. explained his arguments to the court.
He added that no injuries were recorded on the victim’s clothing or body. Little has been seen by any of the witnesses questioned in court, so the accusation is based solely on the testimony of the victim.
“There was a personal conflict and disagreement between the victim and me, so there is reason to believe that in order to get revenge, he gossiped and wrongfully accused me of trying to hurt me with a knife,” said Vytautas P.
There was enough evidence
The judge who examined the appeal highlighted that Vytautas P.’s guilt in relation to the crime committed had been proven by the evidence gathered in the case and discussed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
To arrive at his sentence, the Court of First Instance took into account all the facts of the case, duly analyzed all the circumstances of the case and, after assessing the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence in the case, reasonably rejected the version of the convicted person.
According to the court, the arguments by which the convict denies his guilt are basically the same as those followed in the district court, that is, that Vytautas P. was at the scene of the crime, but came only to speak, and the knife came out unintentionally. .
The victim said that that day he visited the house of the former mother who lived together, where there were three of them. Him, his ex-partner and the latter’s mother. Then he heard someone knock on the window.
He opened the front door and saw Vytautas P. standing next to him, who was obviously drunk. The latter asked to be allowed to drink beer inside, but the victim told him that he would not drink and that he would not be allowed to enter a stranger’s house.
When the unsolicited guest was told a second time that he would not invite this roommate either, a knife was placed in front of the victim. The victim had no doubt that if he had not stopped the blow in time, a knife would have gone through him to his left, somewhere below his heart.
He said that while he was keeping the defendant on the ground, he told him to release him, and he replied that “you almost cut me off.” She asked him “why did you come here with a knife”, and he replied that I had not come to you. He allegedly added that he really wanted to use a knife to hurt his roommate.
The woman herself recounted Vytautas P.’s threats in court. He said he had threatened her before, locked the door, pulled out a knife and said, “Remember what I told you to put in her place.”
[ad_2]
