Threw a 13-year-old toy terrier dog out of the window — the court sentenced the man to 5 years in prison

The Netishyn City Court of Khmelnytskyi Region considered a criminal case against a man accused of committing a criminal offense under part three of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The case concerned cruel treatment of a toy terrier dog that led to the animal's death.

Essence of case № 679/255/26

The court established that the accused, who temporarily had the toy terrier dog in his care, while in an apartment on the seventh floor of a multi-apartment building, deliberately threw the animal out of an open window. As a result of the fall from a great height, the dog sustained severe bodily injuries that caused its death. According to the autopsy, death occurred due to rupture of internal organs and internal bleeding caused by mechanical injuries.

The court found that the victim was a 13-year-old toy terrier dog under the care of the accused.

The accused did not admit guilt and insisted that the dog jumped out of the window on its own. His partner and mother supported the same position. Meanwhile, witnesses who first found the injured animal and tried to help it informed the court about the accused's behavior after the incident, his statements about the dog, and attempts to obstruct assistance to the animal. The court also examined the scene inspection materials, results of the apartment search, video recordings, testimony of a canine specialist, weather conditions on the day of the incident, and other evidence.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court concluded that the accused's guilt was fully proven by the totality of the evidence examined. His actions were qualified under part three of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as cruel treatment of a vertebrate animal that led to the animal's death and was committed actively.

The court critically assessed the defense's version that the dog fell out of the window on its own. This conclusion was substantiated by witness testimony reporting the accused's statements and behavior toward the injured animal after the incident, a neighbor's testimony about circumstances preceding the event, results of the apartment search regarding the distance between the bed and the windowsill, the canine expert's testimony about the physical capabilities of an elderly dog and the presence of self-preservation instincts in animals, as well as data about the place where the dog was found and weather conditions at the time. The court noted that this evidence refutes the version of accidental falling of the animal from the window.

At the same time, the court did not agree with qualifying the actions as committed with particular cruelty. The verdict states that the prosecution did not provide evidence that the accused, wishing the animal's death, simultaneously sought to cause it additional suffering unnecessary for this outcome. Therefore, the court excluded from the charge the reference to committing the criminal offense with particular cruelty (especially painful method) and referred to relevant legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.

Separately, the court rejected the prosecutor's arguments regarding considering the accused's intoxication as an aggravating circumstance. The court noted that this circumstance was not included in the charge in the indictment and therefore cannot be considered when imposing the sentence.

When determining the punishment, the court took into account the severity of the crime, the consequences in the form of the animal's death, the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as information about the accused, who had no prior convictions. The court concluded that the correction of the convicted person is possible only with actual serving of the sentence.

As a result of the case consideration, the court found the accused guilty of committing a criminal offense under part three of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. The preventive measure in the form of detention was left in place until the verdict takes legal effect.

The verdict may be appealed by filing an appeal to the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal.

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