[ad_1]
The appeals court reduced the prison sentence “Mona” killed the land “Nong Nam” the maid the rest of her life left 20 years, the mother said she still did not feel guilty. Ask a prosecutor to file an appeal
On October 6, 2020, in Room 703, Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek Road, the court reads the verdict of the Court of Appeals for Black Case No. 3966/2560 that Criminal Prosecutor 8 is a plaintiff to file suit against Mrs. Krisana or Mona Suwanpitak. Former beauty contestants in Phetchaburi province, Miss Prattana or Mao Tuamsap, a close friend, a younger generation, and Mr. Pramote Suwannapitak. Brother and former village head are defendants on 1-3 bases.
Together to help others not face criminal penalties or suffer less Under Penal Code Section 184 and the first defendant to intentionally kill others. Under the Penal Code, Article 288, in this case, the deceased mother filed a petition for the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of 1,465,776 baht plus interest of 15 per cent per annum.
Stay on top of the news Press to follow the live news line.
The plaintiff prosecutor can present a finding of guilt that When during the month February – March 2012, Miss Jariya, or Nong Nam, 15 years old, has come to work as a domestic worker for Miss Krisana, the first accused in a house in Klang Krung Ratchavipha Village, Chatuchak Sub-district, Chatuchak District. Bangkok In early April – April 12, 2012, the first defendant used an aerosol can approximately 1 foot long, hitting Ms. Chariya’s head several times, which is an important organ for gaining strength. Bump And also use a plastic extension tube The vacuum hit the thigh area. And he used the hair straightener while the heat kept abducting the body until he was seriously injured to death.
The appeals court reduced the prison sentence “Mona” killed the land maid “Nong Nam” the rest of her life left 20 years
Then, on April 15, 2012, the 2-3 defendants transferred the bodies to the trunk of the truck and traveled to Nong Sano Sub-district, Mueang District, Phetchaburi Province, digging the deceased’s grave under the Ton Tan together to the house of the accused. 1 for the 1-2 defendants denied the third defendant confessed
In this case, the Court of First Instance ruled on February 20, 2019 that the 1st defendant was guilty of intentionally murdering another person under Section 288, sentenced to life imprisonment and compensation for the deceased mother. Who had to lack the support of the daughter who died Including funeral expenses The total amount is 1,065,776 baht with an interest of 7.5% per annum in case of default. From the day the deceased mother filed a request for compensation as of March 5, 2012
The second or third defendant is guilty of jointly helping others to avoid criminal penalties or suffer less punishment. According to article 184 of the Penal Code, each person has a prison sentence of 2 years. The testimony of the second accused at the level of instruction is useful for its consideration, reducing the penalty of 1 in 3, 1 year and 4 months in prison for the third accused convicted. Half would be imprisoned for 1 year without punishment.
Later, the prosecutor, the plaintiff, and the first defendant filed an appeal, the third defendant did not file today, the correctional officer removed Ms. Krisna or Mona, the first defendant from the Central Women’s Correctional Institution to court. And Mr. Pramote, the third defendant, came to court
The Court of Appeal examined the idioms of the meeting and then 1-2 defendants acted poorly or not. The plaintiff had witnesses who testified that the first defendant had a bad temper, two Burmese had come to work and were attacked before leaving, seeing the first defendant use an aerosol can to hit the deceased. He later called witnesses to see the deceased in the kitchen. I found a body with burns.
Witnesses saw the three defendants bury the bodies. And another witness saw the first defendant attack the deceased to death By taking the body to ask his temple to believe The temple was not burned because there was no death certificate. The appeals court determined that the two prosecution witnesses linked the process of harming the dead, requesting cremation and burial. There is no reason for anger against the accused. Believe that testifying according to the truth
The first defendant claimed that he did not injure the deceased. But the deceased escaped, the first defendant did not testify in the investigation. By testifying that the deceased died in Bangkok and defendant 1-2 testified that the other party was attacked. Therefore, it is a metaphysical statement. Do not rebut the plaintiff’s evidence for the defendant wounding the victim to death. The three defendants were buried.
From examining the bones of the deceased I found a loose jaw bone. Broken before death From a strong blow to the head And not handed over to the hospital, the first defendant would have foreseen death Guilty of killing the deceased intentionally, the second defendant, the person from the burial, would be guilty of jointly helping others not to face criminal penalties. In the court of first instance the court of appeals agreed. But you saw that the Court of First Instance punished the first defendant too harshly, so please correct accordingly
Ms. Chantira Srisakdi, mother, Nong Nam and daughter who died
Regarding the appeal, if the sanction is slight or pending or not. The Court of Appeal considered that the incarceration was beyond the appropriate 2 to 3. The concealment of the death helped the 1st defendant not to be punished, causing suffering to the deceased mother. Although the defendant had never received a sentence before and the third defendant already paid compensation. No reason to expect punishment. The appeals court agreed. The amendment was sentenced to prison for 20 years to Miss Krisana or Mona, the first accused, while Miss Prasana and Mr. Pramote, the two or three accused, are subject to the sentence of the Court of First Instance (1 year, 4 months in prison and 1 year)
After Ms. Chantira Srisakdi, her mother, Nong Nam, her deceased daughter, said that she was more satisfied that the Court of First Instance sentenced the first defendant for life. Because until now, the 1st defendant has not yet felt any remorse for his actions. Even when he was in the courtroom, the first defendant was still motionless. And he didn’t come in to speak or apologize to mom in any way
Ms. Chantira said that she also appealed the punishment of light. That today the Court of Appeal reduced the penalty to 20 years in prison, the mother saw that the punishment was too light for the crime. For the assault that her daughter died and still buried the body Without letting you know A mother has to chase her daughter and is suffering a lot. Therefore, I would like to ask the prosecutor to file an appeal. For the court to judge again
[ad_2]
