Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
The first defendant fired one shot into the injured party’s house. The bullet mark was approximately two metres above the floor and around one metre above the injured party’s head. A fence separated the parties, and the first defendant fired only once without firing again, even though he had an opportunity to shoot directly at the injured party. The incident arose from an argument and mutual provocation on social media rather than from any serious prior conflict.After considering all the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the first defendant intended only to fire the gun as a threat, rather than to kill the injured party. The Court therefore dismissed the charge of attempted murder under Sections 288 and 80 of the Penal Code.However, the first defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm without justification in a public place under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The Court held that this offense arose from the same incident and could be adjudicated under Section 192, final paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Code.As for the second defendant, who drove the motorcycle while the first defendant rode as a passenger, the Supreme Court found no evidence establishing that he knew about or was involved with the firearm. The gun was found only at the first defendant’s waist, and the second defendant had been released by the authorities at the arrest stage. The Court therefore gave him the benefit of the doubt under Section 227, paragraph two, of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed all charges against him.Although the first defendant did not appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court was still entitled to adjust the sentence as appropriate. Taking into account that the first defendant was 19 years old and that the incident arose from a personal dispute rather than constituting a broader public danger, the Court suspended the two-year term of imprisonment, imposed fines for the relevant offenses, and ordered probation together with community service.

Interesting Article
The evidence from the prosecution, the joint plaintiffs, and even the defendant’s own testimony established that the two deceased persons, P. and K., were merely passengers on the injured party’s motorcycle. They did not assault the defendant, encourage the confrontation, or otherwise support the fight. After the injured party and others had assaulted the defendant, the two deceased simply left with the same group because they had arrived together on the motorcycle.None of the witnesses established that the two deceased had seriously and unjustly provoked the defendant as alleged. The requirements of Section 72 of the Penal Code were therefore not satisfied, and there was no basis for treating the case as one involving an unintended result arising from provocation.By contrast, the evidence showed that the defendant drove his pickup truck in pursuit of the group of motorcycles before forcefully ramming into one of them. A pickup truck is substantially larger and capable of producing far greater impact than a motorcycle. The defendant could therefore have foreseen that both the rider and the passengers could be killed by such a collision.Even though the defendant struck the motorcycle only once, the circumstances demonstrated direct intent toward the deceased. This was not a case in which the defendant intended to harm another person or group but accidentally caused harm to the deceased instead.Since the evidence consistently showed that the two deceased had taken no part in the earlier confrontation, the Court rejected the defense of provocation and held that the case did not fall within the rules governing an unintended act or mistaken result.