He smashed the house where his common-law wife was hiding with an axe: the soldier will spend three years behind bars

The Vinnytsia Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of the Lypovets District Court regarding the sentence imposed on a serviceman convicted of hooliganism using an object specially prepared to inflict bodily harm (Part 4, Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The panel of judges concluded that the local court incorrectly applied the criminal liability law, and the imposed punishment was clearly too lenient.

Circumstances of the case

As established by the courts, on the evening of March 10, 2025, the serviceman, being intoxicated, came to the house where his common-law wife was staying after a family conflict.

The man brought with him an object resembling an axe and a five-liter container of gasoline. At first, he began hitting the metal-plastic window of the house, then poured gasoline on the front door, demanding that the woman come outside. When the homeowner started washing off the gasoline with water, a conflict arose between the men. The accused struck the victim on the head with the wooden part of the axe handle, and when the victim's wife intervened, he punched her several times in the face and hit her again on the head with the wooden part of the axe handle.

As a result, both victims sustained minor bodily injuries, after which the attacker left the scene.

What the court of first instance decided

The Lypovets District Court found the serviceman guilty under Part 4, Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Applying Articles 69 and 62 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment but replaced it with detention in a disciplinary battalion for the same period.

Additionally, the court partially satisfied the civil claims of the victims. The man was awarded 60,000 UAH for moral damages, the woman 70,000 UAH for moral damages and 4,868 UAH for material damages to the property. The court denied the rest of the claims.

Why the appellate court overturned the sentence

The appellate court agreed with the victims' representative that the local court incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The panel emphasized that imposing a more lenient sentence is allowed only when the combination of mitigating circumstances significantly reduces the severity of the committed crime. In the appellate court's opinion, there were no such grounds in this case.

The court noted that the crime was committed while intoxicated, which is an aggravating circumstance, and the attack involved the use of an object resembling an axe and gasoline. Meanwhile, the court of first instance formally referred to several mitigating circumstances without explaining why they significantly reduce the social danger of the crime.

Furthermore, the appellate court stated that active assistance in solving a criminal offense involves providing new, previously unknown evidence to the investigation or exposing other persons. Mere admission of guilt under obvious circumstances cannot be considered such a mitigating circumstance.

The panel also concluded that under the circumstances of case 136/1076/25, combat merits, serviceman status, and the intention to return to military service did not justify applying Articles 69 and 62 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court stressed that the convicted person's desire to continue service is a positive personal characteristic but cannot justify deviation from the criminal law requirements when sentencing.

Final decision

The Vinnytsia Court of Appeal overturned the verdict regarding the sentence and sentenced the convict to three years of imprisonment—the minimum term provided by the sanction of Part 4, Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The time spent in pre-trial detention from March 11, 2025, until the verdict comes into legal force was credited towards the sentence under the "day for day" rule.

At the same time, the appellate court left unchanged the local court's decision on civil claims. The court found no grounds to reduce or increase the amount of moral damages, maintaining compensation of 60,000 UAH for one victim and 70,000 UAH for the other, as well as reimbursement of 4,868 UAH for material damages to the property.

The panel also agreed with the first instance court's conclusion to deny compensation for medical expenses and lost earnings, as the plaintiffs failed to prove the necessary causal link or actual occurrence of such losses.