Man stabbed his cohabitant out of jealousy, then married her: court sentenced him to 5 years in prison

Support of the accused by the victim after domestic violence does not always mean the absence of his guilt. This is the situation considered by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court in case No. 751/2051/24 dated May 28, 2026.

The practical value of this ruling lies in the Court's detailed explanation of which circumstances indicate intent and the emphasis that the assessment of the form of guilt cannot depend solely on the victim's position, especially when it concerns violence in family relations.

Circumstances of the case

The courts established that on October 14, 2023, the accused, being intoxicated, during a conflict with his cohabitant, with whom he lived as one family without registering marriage, inflicted at least eight blows with his fists to her head, torso, and limbs.

As a result of the beating, the victim suffered a closed abdominal injury with a traumatic two-stage rupture of the spleen and intra-abdominal bleeding. In addition, the accused stabbed her in the left part of the chest, causing a stab wound complicated by left-sided hemopneumothorax. Both injuries were recognized as serious bodily injuries dangerous to life at the time of infliction.

The district court found the man guilty under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. The Chernihiv Court of Appeal upheld the verdict.

During the appeal, the convicted person, his defender, and the victim herself argued that the stabbing was unintentional and therefore the actions should be qualified under Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as negligent infliction of serious bodily injury.

The defense also noted that after the first-instance court verdict, on June 19, 2024, the convicted and the victim registered their marriage and have a daughter together. The victim supported the convicted's arguments and requested a change in the legal qualification of his actions.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that the distinction between the crimes under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of serious bodily injury) and Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (negligent infliction of serious bodily injury) is made based on both the objective and subjective sides of these criminal offenses.

The Court noted that when determining the severity of bodily injuries by the method of committing the act, the localization, nature, mechanism of injury formation are taken into account, and the content and nature of the intellectual and volitional criteria of guilt in these crimes with a material composition are conditioned by the person's awareness of the nature of the criminal act committed, foreseeing its negative consequences, and attitude towards these consequences.

Intentional infliction of serious bodily injury (Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) from the objective side is characterized by unlawful encroachment on another person's health, harmful consequences that occurred to the victim's health in the form of bodily injuries, and establishing a causal link between the act and the consequences.

From the subjective side, the crime may be committed with direct or indirect intent (intentional form of guilt).

The Court emphasized that the crimes under Articles 121 and 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine differ primarily by the subjective side: intentional or negligent form of guilt.

The Supreme Court stated that the first-instance court comprehensively examined the defense's version of the absence of intent and reasonably found it inconsistent with the established factual circumstances.

Reviewing the criminal proceedings on appeals by the defender and the victim's representative, the appellate court agreed with this conclusion, noting that this version is not supported by evidence.

The court also paid attention to the results of forensic medical examinations, which refuted the version of accidental injury, as well as witness testimonies, previous cases of domestic violence, and the accused's behavior after the incident.

The Supreme Court concluded that the intentional nature of the actions is evidenced by severe injuries to vital organs, the use of a knife, and the convicted's behavior after the attack, who did not hurry to call medical assistance for the victim.

Separately, the Supreme Court assessed the victim's position, who supported the convicted's version.

The court noted that regarding the victim's position supporting the convicted's version, the courts correctly took into account that she found herself in a difficult life situation due to regular physical and psychological violence from the convicted.

The Supreme Court also cited provisions of the Istanbul Convention and noted that liability for offenses established under this Convention arises regardless of the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender.

Parties must ensure that the investigation or prosecution of offenses established under this Convention does not depend entirely on a report or complaint filed by the victim, and that proceedings may continue even if the victim withdraws their statement or complaint.

Regarding the punishment, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances and noted that considering the data about the convicted person, two aggravating and only one mitigating circumstance, there are no grounds for his acquittal without actual serving of the sentence.

Thus, the Supreme Court left unchanged the local court verdict and the appellate court ruling, which sentenced the man under Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to five years imprisonment.

This ruling demonstrates that in domestic violence cases, courts primarily assess the factual circumstances of the event and evidence, not subsequent relations between the parties.

Even if the victim supports the accused, asks to mitigate his responsibility, or continues family relations with him, this alone does not mean that the crime was less serious or committed negligently. The decisive factor remains what happened during the event itself and what the collected evidence confirms.

Additionally, we suggest reviewing another judicial position, where a man locked his wife in an apartment so she would not divorce him, and the Supreme Court classified this as torture.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.