Sentence Article 264 part 3 suspended sentence. Ulyanovsk regional court - judicial act

P.A.V. claimed and claims that he carried out the movement in accordance with the requirements of the rules traffic, signs and markings on the right side of the movement. He slowed down, and then stopped in front of the railway crossing, made sure that the movement was safe, after which he began to move and gained the speed necessary for safe movement

Read my commentary on Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

P R I G O V O R

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Gus-Khrustalny City Court of the Vladimir Region, consisting of:

presiding judge Davydova Yu.V.,

under the secretaries Shafiulina N.N., Ostapenko E.V.,

with the participation of the public prosecutor assistant Gus-Khrustalny interdistrict prosecutor Sokolova S.V.,

defendant Pakhomova A.V.,

defense lawyer Klimenko N.A., who submitted certificate No. 6541 and an order ** issued by the Moscow Bar Association "Pravoved",

victims FULL NAME40

having considered the materials of the criminal case against

Pakhomova A.V., born ddmmyy in x. *** ***, a citizen of the Russian Federation, with a complete secondary education, married, having a dependent minor daughter, working as a driver for LLC "***" ***, registered and residing at: ***, ** *, ***, ***, ***, no previous convictions,

accused of committing a crime under part 3 of article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

SET UP:

The body of the preliminary investigation Pakhomov A.The. charged with violating traffic rules by a person driving a car, negligently resulting in serious bodily harm and death of two persons, which, as stated in the indictment, was committed under the following circumstances.

ddmmyy at about 18 hours 00 minutes Pakhomov A.V., driving a technically sound car brand *** state registration plate ** with a semi-trailer ***, state registration plate ** moved along the carriageway of the Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny - Tuma highway with side of the city of Vladimir towards the city of Gus-Khrustalny. Following in the indicated direction, and being at ** kilometer of the road in the Gus-Khrustalny district of the Vladimir region, the driver Pakhomov A.V., in violation of paragraph 10.1. Rules of the road of the Russian Federation, did not take into account road and meteorological conditions, chose a speed of 80 km / h, which did not provide the possibility of constant control over the movement of the vehicle. Approaching a dangerous section in the form of a curve of a small radius road to the right, marked with a warning road sign 1.11.1. "Dangerous turn", Pakhomov A.V. in violation of paragraphs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation and paragraph 2.5 of the annex to the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, did not stop in front of the traffic sign "Movement without stopping is prohibited" installed before the railway crossing, lost control of the car, drove through the railway crossing , left on the opposite side of the movement, where he immediately collided with a car brand *** state registration plate ** under the control of the driver FULL NAME25 and a car brand *** state registration plate **, under the control of FULL NAME10 FULL NAME10., moving in the opposite direction.

As a result of the traffic accident, the passengers of the car *** FULL NAME6 and FULL NAME11 received injuries, from which they died at the scene. The driver of the car *** FULL NAME10 suffered grievous bodily harm.

By their actions, the driver Pakhomov A.The. violated the requirements of paragraph.n. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 10.1 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, p.p. 1.11.1 and 2.5 of Appendix 1 to the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, namely:

- according to clause 1.3 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, road users are required to know and comply with the requirements of the Rules, traffic lights, signs and markings that apply to them, as well as follow the orders of traffic controllers acting within the rights granted to them and regulating traffic, established signals;

- according to clause 1.4 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, right-hand traffic of vehicles is established on the roads;

- according to clause 1.5 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, road users must act in such a way as not to create a danger to traffic and not cause harm;

- according to clause 10.1 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, the driver must drive the vehicle at a speed not exceeding the established limit. At the same time, taking into account the intensity of traffic, the characteristics and condition of the vehicle and cargo, road and meteorological conditions, in particular visibility in the direction of travel. The speed must provide the driver with the possibility of constant control over the movement of the vehicle in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules. If there is a danger to traffic that the driver is able to detect, he must take all possible measures to reduce speed until the vehicle stops;

- in accordance with paragraph 1.11.1 of Appendix 1 to the traffic rules of the Russian Federation "Dangerous turn". Rounding of the road of small radius or with limited visibility;

- in accordance with clause 2.5 of Appendix 1 to the traffic rules of the Russian Federation "Movement without stopping is prohibited." It is forbidden to move without stopping in front of the stop line. And if it is not there - before the edge of the crossed carriageway ... Sign 2.5 can be installed in front of a railway crossing or a quarantine post. In these cases, the driver must stop in front of the stop line, and in its absence, in front of the sign.

The stated measures aimed at ensuring road safety and accident-free travel on this section of the carriageway, the driver Pakhomov A.The. did not undertake. Violation of the requirements of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation by him is in a direct causal relationship with the consequences.

These actions Pahomova A.The. qualified under Part 3 of Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

At the hearing the defendant Pakhomov A.The. pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Having checked and evaluated the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense parties, the court considers that the defendant's guilt has not been confirmed.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 14 and Part 4 of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on the condition that during the trial the guilt of the defendant in committing a crime is confirmed by the totality of the examined evidence.

Based on the above requirements of the law, in order to conclude on guilt, such evidence is necessary that is reliable, and their totality is sufficient to resolve the case and establish guilt.

According to the public prosecutor, the totality of the evidence presented (protocols of inspections of the scene and vehicles, the conclusions of judicial autotechnical, trace and medical examinations, the testimony of the victim FULL NAME10 FULL NAME10., witness FULL NAME25, which are reliable, confirm the guilt of Pakhomov A.V. in the incriminated act.

However, evaluating the examined evidence, the court comes to the following conclusions.

Thus, the public prosecutor presented the following evidence, which, in his opinion, confirms the guilt of Pakhomov A.V.

When examining the scene of the incident, a section of the road located at ** km of the highway Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny - Tuma, the situation was recorded: the position on the carriageway in the direction of Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny of the car *** g.n. ** with semi-trailer *** m.n. ** and cars located in the right ditch in the direction of Gus-Khrustalny - Vladimir *** g.n. ** and *** g.n. **. Near the car *** found corpses FULL NAME6 and FULL NAME11 with numerous bodily injuries. (v.1l.d.9-13)

The scheme of the traffic accident and the photo-table to the protocol of inspection of the scene of the accident reflect the location of vehicles relative to the railway crossing, traces of glass and plastic scree, and the position of the corpses. (t.1l.d.14-15.16)

During an additional inspection of the scene, it was recorded road signs and their distance to the railroad crossing. (v.2l.d.122-124)

The results of this inspection correspond to the layout of road signs on this section of the road. (v.2l.d.128-129)

witness FULL NAME12, investigator *** explained that ddmmyy year in the afternoon was on regular duty. At about 18-19 o'clock ATC duty officer *** reported a traffic accident involving police officers. As part of the investigative team went to the incident. Arriving at a place located between the railway crossing and the village of *** on the road Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny, he saw the consequences of a collision of vehicles. Their location was reflected in the inspection report and the scheme to it. At the same time, a tractor of brand *** with a semi-trailer was on the roadway, and cars of brand *** and *** were in the right ditch in the direction of ***. Two passengers of the car brand *** died before the arrival of the ambulance. The weather was cloudy, it was snowing and raining. The road was heavily iced. In this regard, almost before the inspection, the road emergency service treated the road, including the scene, with a sand-salt mixture.

Witness FULL NAME14, Inspector *** ***, said that ddmmyy year on the second day received a message about a traffic accident near the village *** *** on the road Gus-Khrustalny - Vladimir. Upon arrival, I saw the consequences of a collision of vehicles - a tractor *** with a semi-trailer with cars of the brand *** and ***. At the same time, tractor *** with a semi-trailer was on the roadway near the S-shaped turn in the direction of ***, and cars of the brand *** and *** were in the right ditch in the direction of ***, at a distance of * ** meters from the railway crossing. Before the start of the inspection, the road service cleared the scene and treated the road surface with a sand-salt mixture. For this reason, the traces at the scene were destroyed. Before processing the road, he noticed traces of the skid of a car of brand ***.

witness FULL NAME15, inspector DPS traffic police, testified similar to the testimony of witness FULL NAME14. Added about icing pavement, the presence of victims, two of whom were sent to the hospital, and two passengers of the car *** died before the arrival of the ambulance.

During the inspection of the car *** g.n. ** technical damage to the vehicle was recorded: deformation of the roof, right and left front pillars, front frame, left B-pillar, front and rear left doors. The windshield, the right and left headlights, the glass of the left doors were broken. (v.1l.d.17-18)

When viewed from the car *** g.n. ** such technical damages as deformation of the hood, front left and right fenders, front frame are noted. Two front headlights were broken. (v.1l.d.19-20)

According to the protocol of inspection of the car *** g.n. ** reflects technical damage to the vehicle, such as deformation of the front bumper, front cab lining, left footboard, rear bracket of the right wing. Broken front decorative lattice, right and left headlights, rear right lamp signal lights. (v.1l.d.22-23)

On a semi-trailer *** m.n. ** no technical damage found. (v.1l.d.21-22)

According to the expert's conclusion, ** FULL NAME11 died ddmmyy from combined blunt trauma to the chest, abdomen and limbs, accompanied by multiple fractures of the bones of the skeleton, ruptures and bruises internal organs, which could be formed in the conditions of a traffic accident from impacts with sufficient force of blunt solid objects or when hitting them. (v.1l.d.149-152)

From the conclusion of the expert ** it can be seen that the death of FULL NAME6 came from the blunt concomitant trauma of the whole body that he had, which could be formed as a result of a massive blunt trauma, possibly in a traffic accident, while in the car. (v.1l.d.166-167)

The conclusion of the expert ** established that FULL NAME10 has bodily injuries in the form of a concussion of the brain, a scalped wound of the parietal region, multiple lacerations of the face, a fracture of the bones of the nose, a contusion of the chest on the right, which caused slight harm to health on the basis of a short-term health disorder, not more than 21 days, could have been caused by ddmmyy years from the action of blunt and sharp (glass shards) objects, possibly inside the car in a traffic accident. The scars on the face are indelible. (v.2l.d.16-17)

According to the expert's conclusion, ** FULL NAME25 found bodily injuries in the form of a closed fracture of the wing of the left iliac bone, a bruise of the left elbow joint and chest on the left, resulting in harm to health of moderate severity, on the basis of a long-term health disorder, over 21 days. The damage was caused ddmmyy by blunt hard objects or when hitting them, possibly in a traffic accident in the car at the time of a collision with another vehicle. (v.2l.d.40-41)

Thus, it was established by the court and is not disputed by the parties that ddmmyy, about 18 hours in the area ** km of the highway Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny - Tuma, a traffic accident occurred involving vehicles: car ** g.n. ** with semi-trailer ** m.n. **, driven by driver Pakhomov A.V.; car *** r.n. **, under the control of the driver FULL NAME25., with passengers FULL NAME6 and FULL NAME11; vehicle *** *** r.n. **, under the control of FULL NAME10. As a result of the collision of a car *** with a semi-trailer moving in the direction of ***, with cars *** and *** moving in the direction of ***, the vehicles received technical damage, FULL NAME6 and FULL NAME11 - injuries incompatible with life, and FULL NAME25 and FULL NAME10 bodily injuries of varying severity.

Regarding the circumstances of the road accident the defendant Pakhomov A.The. The court gave the following testimony.

ddmmyy about 13 hours driving a car *** m.n. ** with semi-trailer *** m.n. ** left *** for ***. The car was not loaded and was in good condition. About 18 hours I drove ** km of the Vladimir-Gus-Khrustalny-Tuma highway. It got dark, the weather was cloudy, it was snowing with rain, there was ice on the road. The car was moving with the headlights on. The speed was 50-60 km / h. Approaching an unregulated railway crossing, he slowed down and complied with the requirement of the sign "Movement without stopping is prohibited" and stopped. After making sure that there were no obstacles for crossing the railway crossing, he continued to move, gradually increasing the speed of the car to 30 km/h. At this time, I saw a beam of light from the headlights of a car moving in the opposite direction. After that, a car *** drove out of the right-hand bend of the road along a small radius, which began to skid on ice. The driver lost control and the car *** drove into the oncoming lane. He took emergency braking action. Almost immediately, a tangential collision occurred between the car *** and the tractor. The headlights went out from the impact, the tractor began to turn to the left in the direction of the semi-trailer. There was a side sliding of the tractor and semi-trailer. Almost immediately I felt a second blow, as it turned out later from the car ***, to the right side of the tractor, which began to turn to the right along the roadway. At the same time, the rear of the semi-trailer was swept into the oncoming lane. After stopping the vehicle, he got out of the car. In the right ditch in the direction of *** I saw two cars: *** and ***. He helped the victims, began to wait for the arrival of police officers and an ambulance.

A different version of the events of the traffic accident told the court witness FULL NAME25. From his testimony it is clear that he has a driving experience of about 15 years. For about 1.5 years, he has owned a right-hand drive Toyota Corolla Spacio brand car.

ddmmyy year on business need he, FULL NAME11 and FULL NAME6 on the car brand *** under his control went to ***, where they were until 18 o'clock. We returned to *** in the same car along the Gus-Khrustalny-Vladimir road. He drove the vehicle, and FULL NAME11 and FULL NAME6 were on the left front and rear passenger seats. He was moving along his lane at a speed of about 50 km / h, turning on the dipped headlights. It was overcast, it was snowing with rain, the road surface was covered with a mixture of mud, snow, water, and had icing. At a distance of about 100 meters from the railway crossing, located near *** ***, reduced the speed to 5-10 km/h. At a distance of 10 meters from the railway crossing, near the warning sign, I saw a car of brand *** with a semi-trailer moving in the opposite direction along its lane with the headlights on. Without lowering your high speed a car of brand *** ran over a railway crossing, which caused the vehicle to skid into oncoming traffic. He tried to avoid the collision, turned the steering wheel to the right, but the *** car collided with the left side of the *** car. From the impact, the car *** was thrown to the side of the road, and then into a ditch. Lost consciousness from pain.

victim FULL NAME10. explained that at about 6 p.m. ddmmyy, driving a car of brand ***, he drove from the city of *** to the city of *** along the Tuma-Gus-Khrustalny-Vladimir road. It was dark, there were precipitations, the road surface was icy and covered with a mixture of snow and mud. He moved at a low speed. In front of the village, *** caught up with a car moving in the same direction and continued to follow it, keeping a distance of about 100 meters. Passed *** and the S-shaped bend of the road, saw one moving at a considerable speed in the opposite direction freight car with headlights on. He, continuing rectilinear motion in his lane, directed his eyes towards the side of the road so that the headlights would not blind him. He noticed a brake light of a car moving in the same direction, after which he felt a strong blow and lost consciousness. Waking up, he got out of the car, which was in a ditch, after which he was taken to the hospital by a friend.

Witness FULL NAME 10. gave evidence to the court that ddmmyy year about 17 hours 30 minutes FULL NAME10 on his car brand *** went home in g. *** on the highway Tuma - Gus-Khrustalny - Vladimir. The weather was cloudy, it was snowing with rain, there was heavy icing on the road. At about 19 o'clock a relative called him on a mobile phone and said that FULL NAME10 had been in a traffic accident. Passing by the scene FULL NAME18 took FULL NAME10 and taken to the hospital. He arrived at the scene of the incident, located on highway Vladimir - Gus-Khrustalny, near the railway crossing, not far from the village *** ***. Approximately 20 meters from the railway track in the ditch towards the city of ***, *** was lying on the roof. Closer to the crossing in the same ditch was a car with various technical damage. There was a tractor *** with a semi-trailer on the lane towards the city of ***. Police officers were at the scene of the incident, drawing up an inspection report and a diagram. Near the tractor was the driver Pakhomov A.V., who answered his questions that the tractor was moving under his control towards the city of ***, he began to slow down, the car skidded and carried into the oncoming traffic lane, which caused a collision. On the roadway, I saw traces of side sliding of the car ***.

Witness FULL NAME 38. testified that ddmmyy at about 18-19 o'clock in his car he was heading to the city of *** along the road Gus-Khrustalny - Vladimir. Between the village of *** and the railway crossing, I saw the consequences of a traffic accident involving a tractor *** with a semi-trailer, which occupied most of the road, and cars of the brand *** and ***, which were in the right ditch in the direction of the city of ***. Shards of glass and plastic, parts of the bumper lay on the road. Bypassing tractor *** on the right in his lane he saw his friend FULL NAME10 FULL NAME10. with injuries, took him to the hospital.

witness FULL NAME19 confirmed the testimony of witness FULL NAME18 and reported that he was at the scene. Pakhomov A.V. reported that his car skidded and a collision occurred.

victim FULL NAME40 explained to the court that ddmmyy year about 19 hours from friends learned about the death of his son — FULL NAME11, as a result of a traffic accident that occurred on the territory ***.

The victim FULL NAME41 explained that ddmmyy, about 24 hours, the police officers reported the death of his brother- FULL NAME43 From them he learned that on the Gus-Khrustalny-Vladimir highway there was a collision of cars, in one of which his brother was a passenger, and the second , mark ***, was driven by A.V. Pakhomov. The scene was near the railway crossing not far from the village ***. A car of brand *** was moving at a speed of over 80 km/h and collided as a result of a skid.

Assessing the above evidence, the court concludes on the reliability of the testimony of the defendant Pakhomov A.The. about the circumstances of the traffic accident. It proceeds from the following data examined by the court.

It was not possible to establish the place of collision of vehicles for objective reasons. Before the inspection, the site of the traffic accident was cleaned by a road service vehicle and the roadbed was covered with a special mixture. As a result of these actions, information significant for the case (finding traces of scree, glass and their belonging to vehicles) were irretrievably lost.

In order to restore the circumstances of the traffic accident and identify the perpetrators of the case, a comprehensive forensic autotechnical and trassological examination was appointed.

The parameters of the scene and the relative position of vehicles, reflected in the protocols of the initial and additional inspections of the scene, other materials of the case, which set out the versions of Pakhomov A.V., FULL NAME25 and FULL NAME10. regarding the circumstances of the incident, were presented to the experts. When conducting an expert study, the experts made a trip to the scene to get acquainted with geometric characteristics the site of the traffic accident and the nature of the movement of vehicles on it.

As a result of the research, the following results were obtained.

According to the conclusion of the commission of experts ** dated ddmmyy, the mechanism of the traffic accident indicated by the drivers of cars *** and *** does not correspond to the objective circumstances of this traffic accident and is untenable from a technical point of view. The mechanism of the road accident indicated by the driver of the car ***, from a technical point of view, is not in conflict with the circumstances of the road accident known and established in the course of this study.

From a technical point of view, in the situation preceding the traffic accident in the actions of the driver of the car *** Pakhomova A.V. no inconsistencies with the requirements of traffic rules are not seen. At the same time, in the actions of the driver *** FULL NAME25 in this situation, from a technical point of view, there were inconsistencies with the requirements of paragraphs 1.5, 9.4, 10.1 of the SDA, which is in a direct causal relationship with the event of a traffic accident and the consequences. With regard to the driver of the car *** FULL NAME10 then in his actions in the situation preceding the traffic accident, from a technical point of view, there are inconsistencies with the requirements of paragraph.n. 1.5, 9.4 and 10.1 SDA. However, the available and received data are insufficient for a reasonable categorical conclusion about the presence, from a technical point of view, of a direct causal relationship between his actions and a collision with a car **.

The conclusion of the commission of experts ** dated ddmmyy was made in strict accordance with the requirements of Articles 80, 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and federal law“On State Expert Activities in the Russian Federation” dated May 31, 2001, have research, synthesizing parts and conclusions. There are no doubts about the qualifications of the experts and the validity of the conclusions set out in the conclusion. There are no contradictions in the conclusions of the experts. They are objective, complete and reasoned.

In this regard, the arguments of the public prosecutor Sokolov C.The. about doubts about the objectivity of experts are untenable and not substantiated.

The conclusion of the autotechnical examination ** that the collision of vehicles located in the opposite direction occurred with the right front part of the car *** g.n. ** with semi-trailer *** m.n. ** with the left front side of the vehicle *** r.n. **, and the longitudinal axes of these vehicles were at an angle of 70-75 degrees relative to each other (t. 2l.d. 93-94), and the conclusion of the autotechnical examination ** that the collision of vehicles located in the opposite direction occurred on the right rear side of the car *** m.n. ** with semi-trailer *** m.n. ** with the left front of the vehicle *** r.n. **, and the longitudinal axes of these vehicles were at an angle of 80-85 degrees relative to each other (t.2ld.d. 104-105), which the public prosecutor refers to in substantiating his position on the guilt of Pakhomov A.V. and the groundlessness of the conclusion, on the contrary, confirm the conclusions of the commission of experts on the relative position of vehicles on the roadway, the mechanism for the formation of technical damage to cars *** and ***, *** and *** as a result of a collision and their subsequent dynamic interaction.

With regard to the protocols submitted by the prosecution for inspections of the scene and vehicles, the results of forensic examinations, they cannot be evidence of the guilt of Pakhomov A.The. in the alleged act.

Thus, the presented evidence, set out in the protocols of inspections of the scene and vehicles, only confirms the event of the traffic accident, the location of the vehicles immediately after the accident and the identified technical damage. Forensic medical examinations recorded bodily injuries in the victims, established the cause of death and a causal relationship between the traffic accident and the resulting bodily injuries.

None of the above evidence directly or indirectly indicates Pakhomov A.The. as the person responsible for the charge.

Testimony of witnesses FULL NAME10. and FULL NAME19 about explanations Pakhomov A.The. about skidding the car, leaving the lane oncoming traffic and collision with other cars explained to the defendant. Their opinion that Pakhomov A.V. reported his actions and the skidding of the car ***, is an assumption and does not correspond to the evidence examined in court.

Regarding the charges Pakhomov A.The. in violation of the requirements of paragraphs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 10.1 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, the court proceeds from the fact that no objective evidence of exceeding the established speed limit was presented by the prosecution. Witness FULL NAME25 and victim FULL NAME10. about a significant speed of a MAZ car moving in the opposite direction are assumptions. No data was recorded from which it was possible to determine the speed of vehicles.

However, Pakhomov A.The. claimed and still claims that he carried out the movement in accordance with the requirements of the traffic rules, signs and markings on the right side of the movement. He slowed down, and then stopped in front of the railway crossing, made sure that the traffic was safe, after which he began to move and gained the speed necessary for safe movement.

The prosecution did not provide any convincing evidence refuting the arguments of Pakhomov A.The., in connection with which the court concludes that Pakhomov A.The. in the violations of traffic rules indicated by the prosecution party.

since sufficient objective and reliable evidence testifying to the guilt of Pakhomov A.The. in the commission of the alleged crime is not presented, and according to Article.14 Code of Criminal Procedure all irremovable doubts about guilt are interpreted in favor of the defendant, the court considers it necessary on the basis of paragraph.2 h.2 Article.302 Code of Criminal Procedure to acquit Pakhomov A.The. on charges under Part 3 of Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-participation in the commission of this crime.

The preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave is subject to cancellation, since there is no need to apply it.

In accordance with Article.Article. 134 and 135 Code of Criminal Procedure for Pakhomov A.The. recognized the right to rehabilitation.

According to Part 3 of Article 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the criminal case is subject to direction to the head of the Investigation Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate at *** for the conduct of a preliminary investigation and the identification of a person to be charged as an accused.

According to claims FULL NAME40 it is impossible to make additional calculations without postponing the trial, therefore, by virtue of Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court recognizes the right of the specified civil plaintiff to satisfy the civil claim and transfers the issue of the amount of its compensation for consideration in civil proceedings.

Based on the above, guided by Article.Article. 302, 305, 306 and 309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

SENTENCED:

Pakhomova A.V. on charges of committing a crime, under Part.3 Article.264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to acquit, due to non-involvement in the commission of a crime.

preventive measure Pakhomovu A.The. in the form of a written undertaking not to leave, cancel.

recognize for Pakhomov A.The. the right to rehabilitation, which includes the right to compensation for property damage, elimination of the consequences of moral damage and restoration of other rights. Explain that with claims for compensation for property damage, the rehabilitated or his legal representative, within the statute of limitations established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, from the date of receipt of a copy of the verdict that has entered into legal force, has the right to apply to the Gus-Khrustalny City Court. Claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in monetary terms are filed in civil proceedings. The restoration of other rights of the rehabilitated person is carried out in the order of execution of the sentence.

Recognize for FULL NAME40 the right to satisfy the claim and refer the issue of its size for consideration in civil proceedings.

Send the criminal case to the head of the Investigation Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate at *** for conducting a preliminary investigation and identifying the person to be brought as an accused.

The verdict can be appealed in cassation in *** court within 10 days from the date of announcement.

In the case of filing an appeal acquitted Pakhomov A.The. has the right to apply for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation.

Chairperson ____________________

If you liked the post, you can

SENTENCE IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Ivanteevsky City Court of the Moscow Region, consisting of:

presiding judge: GURKINA C.GN

With the participation of the public prosecutor: Barkova E.Yu.,

With the secretary: Demidova A.V., with the participation of the defendant: S.A.K.,

lawyers: K.N.V., who presented certificate No. 6592 and warrant No. 254;

S.A.K., born December 01, 1981, born in Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan, registered at the address: Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, st. Bryusov, d., apt., residing at the address: Moscow region, Odintsovo, Mozhayskoe shosse, d., apt., citizen of the Republic of Armenia, having a secondary education, unmarried, having a dependent daughter, born in 2003, earlier not convicted, accused under Part 3 of Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

SET UP:

S.A.K. committed a violation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently resulted in the death of a person. The crime was committed under the following circumstances:

S.A.K. June 20, 2012 at about 06:00, having a driver's license for the right to drive a vehicle of this category, driving a technically sound vehicle - a Mazda-3 car, state registration plate, with one passenger, moving in clear weather on dry, asphalted, without potholes and potholes, horizontal profile, 9.2 meters wide for two directions of traffic, carriageway along the street. Hlebozavodskaya from the street. Zarechnaya in the direction of the street. Kirov, Ivanteevka, Moscow Region, at a speed of at least 60 km / h, which was not more precisely established during the investigation, in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bhouse No. on the street. Khlebozavodskoy, Ivanteevka, Moscow Region, crossed solid line road markings, drove into the oncoming lane and collided with a SKYGO SG200 motorcycle, driven by Sh.A.S. 9.1 and 11.1 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, as well as par. 3 and par. 28 Appendix No. 2 to the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation. So S.A.K. did not show the required care and forethought when driving his vehicle, took lightly the need to comply with the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation and ensure traffic safety, namely, he drove into the oncoming lane, where he collided with a SKYGO SG200 motorcycle driven by Sh.A. S., following in the opposite direction in his own lane. As a result of a traffic accident, the driver of the SKYGO SG200 motorcycle Sh.L.S. soft tissues left parietal-temporal region, transverse fracture of the bones of the base of the skull, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage, liquid blood in the ventricles of the brain. Closed blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen, crushing of the right lobe of the liver, massive hemorrhage in the perirenal tissue of the right kidney, multiple ruptures of the right kidney, abrasion on the posterior-lateral surface of the chest on the left, abrasion on the left shoulder and forearm, bruises and abrasions on the right forearm; bruises and lacerations in the region of both legs. Open fracture of the bones of the left leg. From these injuries, he died on the spot. These damages were formed in one short time period. The mechanism of damage formation is based on a blow with blunt solid objects with a predominant contact surface and a general concussion of the body, with a primary traumatic effect at the level of the left posterolateral surface of the body. Taking into account the nature, localization, mechanism of damage formation, they arose in the conditions of a traffic accident, in a collision of a moving vehicle. motor vehicle- a motorcycle with an obstacle, when the victim is in the front driver's seat of the motorcycle. All injuries established on the corpse of Sh.A.S. form a single set of injuries caused under the conditions of a motorcycle injury and should be assessed in their entirety in terms of severity. These injuries as life-threatening and creating an immediate threat to life are qualified as serious harm to health. Death of Sh.A.S. It occurred as a result of shock and acute blood loss with a gross combined injury of the head, trunk and limbs with multiple fractures of the bones of the skeleton and extensive destruction of internal organs. At the time of Sh.A.S.'s death. was sober.

defendant C.A.K. fully recognized his guilt in the committed crime, deeply repented of his deed, refused to testify, referring to Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, asked to read out his testimony given at the preliminary investigation, which he fully supports, according to which on June 20, 2012 at about 06:00 he, together with S.Yu. in a car "Mazda-3", state number, followed along Khlebozavodskaya Street, Ivanteevka, Moscow Region. In front of him, a regular bus was moving in the same direction, further in the direction of travel, he saw a crossroads with a turn to the left. He decided to overtake this bus and turn left a little earlier. Looking out from behind the bus, he made sure that the roadway in the opposite direction was empty, there were no moving vehicles. Then he crossed the solid marking line, drove into the oncoming lane and proceeded with acceleration to the turn at a speed of 60 km/h. After he drove into the oncoming lane and drew level with the rear axle of the bus, in the opposite direction, a few meters from the turn, he saw a moving motorcycle. Seeing him, he tried to sharply turn the steering wheel to the right, but due to the considerable speed and the whole distance, a collision could not be avoided. A strong blow fell on the left side of the car, the airbags deployed, he pressed the brakes and after 25-30 meters the car stopped. Then, fearing that he would be deprived of his driver's license, he told S.Yu.Yu. to change places with him. They changed quickly and Y. got out of the car from the driver's side. When he realized that the motorcyclist had died, he was very frightened, told S.Yu.Yu. to get into the car, got behind the wheel himself and drove off in a straight direction, hiding from the scene of the accident.

After driving for some time, he drove into a holiday village and left the car near a private scrap, and himself with S.Yu.Yu. went out to the track, stopped the car and they left for Moscow.

After examining the circumstances of the case, the court finds guilt C.A.K. in the commission of a violation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently caused the death of a person, fully proved both by the confession of the defendant S.A.K., and by the following evidence:

The testimony of the victim M.M.O., who at the hearing explained that since March 2006 she had been in a registered marriage with the deceased Sh.A.S. On June 20, 2012, early in the morning, he left Ivanteevka on his motorcycle for Moscow to work. My husband had a great driving experience, as he worked as a driver. He was sober. At about 8 am, she became aware that Sh.A.S. got into an accident and died. She was left alone with two dependent children. The husband was the only breadwinner in the family. Claim on compensation for material damage 5 in connection with the funeral and compensation for moral damage, she supports in in full because death loved one caused her strong emotional experiences, psychological stress, due to the fact that she was left alone with two minor children.

The testimony of witness C.Yew.Yu., which explained to the court that on June 20, 2012 they were with S.A.K. we drove to St. Petersburg in a Mazda-3 car. On the way, we turned to the city of Ivanteevka, Moscow Region, to rest. At about 6 o'clock in the morning, following the street in the city of Ivanteevka for the regular bus S.A.K. decided to turn left and began to overtake this bus. She was dozing in the car and doesn't remember everything well. After he began to turn, a motorcyclist driving in the opposite direction crashed into the car. Sarkisov told her to change places with him. She did not immediately understand why. When she got behind the wheel and then exited from the driver's door, she saw a man lying under the car. She felt his pulse and realized that he was dead. After that, Sarkisov told her to get into the car. He himself got behind the wheel, and they left, as they were very frightened. Having followed in an unknown direction, they left the car near some private house, went out onto the highway, caught a ride and returned to Moscow. A day later S.A.K. told her that he decided to confess everything, and they went to the traffic police in Ivanteevka. She does not have a driver's license, she does not know how to drive a car.

- the testimony of witness S.M.A., who explained to the court that on June 20, 2012 he was driving a regular bus route No. 22. At about 6 o’clock on Khlebozavodskaya Street in Ivanteevka, having driven a little from the Shkola stop, in the mirror rear view, he saw a Mazda 3 overtaking him white color, while crossing the solid marking line. Who was driving, he did not see. In a moment he heard a strong blow in the area of ​​the rear wheel of the bus. Stopping, I saw in the mirror that a girl was standing by the driver's side of the car, and a young man was standing on the other side, and the motorcyclist was lying under the car. He thought that they would call an ambulance and the traffic police, and followed his route. When he came back, he saw that place of the accident traffic police arrived, but there was no white car. He stopped and said that he saw the moment when the motorcyclist collided with a white Mazda 3 car, in which there was a girl and a young man.

- the testimony of witness P.I.A., who explained to the court that he lives in the house next to which the accident occurred. Early in the morning of June 20, 2012, he was woken up by loud noise from the street. I immediately looked out the window and saw that a white Mazda car was standing at the crossroads, and next to it was a motorcyclist who was wearing a helmet. The motorcycle itself lay on the roadway. He saw that a girl was standing next to the driver's door, and a young man was bending over a motorcyclist. Then they got into the car and drove away.

- the testimony of witness A.A.G., the mother of the defendant, who explained to the court that her son S.A.K. lives with her, who is a private driver. For this purpose, a white Mazda-3 car was purchased, registered in the name of her daughter S.R.K. June 19, 2012 S.A.K. told her that he was leaving for St. Petersburg, but not by car. On June 20, 2012, her daughter called her and asked where the car was. She looked out the window and did not see her at the place where the Mazda car usually stood. She even thought that she was stolen. But then it turned out that S.A.K. I drove this car to St. Petersburg with my friend S.Yu.Yu. and in the city of Ivanteevka got into an accident, which resulted in the death of Sh.A.S. Her son told her about all this.

- the testimony of witness S.R.K., read out at the court session at her request with the consent of the other participants in the process, according to which she owns a Mazda-3 car, a state number, which her brother S.A.K. drives by proxy. On 20 June 2012 Ivanteevka police called her and asked where her car was. She replied that her brother was driving the car, and she did not know where she was, but she promised to find out. Calling A.A.G., she asked where her brother and car were. The mother replied that the car was not there, and A.'s phone was not answered. Then the traffic police called her again and after she said that she did not know where the car was, she was offered to come to give explanations, explaining that there had been an accident involving a Mazda car. Subsequently, she learned from her brother that he was going to go by car with his friend to St. Petersburg, but on the way he got into an accident, as a result of which a person died. He left the scene of the accident because he was afraid.

Vina S.A.K. also confirmed by other written evidence in the case, examined at the hearing, which were obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, are admissible and relevant:

- the material of the administrative investigation into the accident that took place on June 20, 2012, as a result of which Sh.A.S. died on the spot from the injuries received;

- protocol of inspection of the site of a traffic accident dated 06/20/2012 - a site at the address: Moscow region, Ivanteevka, st. Khlebozavodskaya, opposite house number, with a photo table and a diagram of the accident site.

- the report of the inspection of the scene of the incident dated 06/20/2012 - a site located on the adjacent territory to a private house in SNT "Rassvet-1", on which the car "Mazda-3" is located, white, license plate, during the inspection of which damage was found body, with the application of a photo table;

- the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident dated 06/22/2012 - the territory of the parking lot of Spetsavto LLC at the address: Moscow Region, Mytishchi, st. Coal, d., on which the Mazda-3 car was placed, license plate. During the inspection, the deployed airbags located in the dashboard in front of the driver's and front passenger's seats were removed from this vehicle;

- the protocol of inspection of the scene of the incident dated 12.07.2012 - the territory of the parking lot located at the address: Moscow Region, Ivanteevka, st. Trudovaya, d., on which the SKYGO SG200 motorcycle is located, during the inspection of which various mechanical damages to the body were found;

- expert opinion No. dated 07/11/2012, according to which no saliva and blood stains were found on the airbags from the Mazda-3 car;

- expert opinion No., according to which the traces of the fingers seized during the inspection of the Mazda-3 car on 20.06.2012, the state number, submitted for examination for identification are not suitable;

- the conclusion of the autotechnical expertise No. dated 24.07.2012, from which it follows that it is not possible to establish the coordinates of the collision site of the Mazda-3 car and the SKYGO SG200 motorcycle by expert means due to the lack of the necessary initial data. It is only possible to indicate that the place of collision of the Mazda-3 car and the SKYGO SG200 motorcycle was located on the traffic lane of the direction to the street. Zarechnaya in the area of ​​​​location of the "stesa, moto dragging (4.0 × 4.0)";

- expert opinion (examination of the corpse) No. dated 10/11/2012, according to which Sh.A.S. there were the following bodily injuries: open craniocerebral injury: hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the left parietal-temporal region, transverse fracture of the bones of the base of the skull, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage, liquid blood in the ventricles of the brain. Closed blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen, crushing of the right lobe of the liver, massive hemorrhage in the perirenal tissue of the right kidney, multiple ruptures of the right kidney, abrasion on the posterior-lateral surface of the chest on the left, abrasion on the left shoulder and forearm, bruises and abrasions on the right forearm; bruises and lacerations in the region of both legs. Open fracture of the bones of the left leg. These damages were formed in one short time period. The mechanism of damage formation is based on a blow with blunt solid objects with a predominant contact surface and a general concussion of the body, with a primary traumatic effect at the level of the left posterolateral surface of the body. Taking into account the nature, localization, mechanism of damage formation, they arose in the conditions of a traffic accident, when a moving vehicle - a motorcycle collided with an obstacle, when the victim was located in the front driver's seat of a motorcycle. All injuries established on the corpse of Sh.A.S. form a single set of injuries caused under the conditions of a motorcycle injury and should be assessed in their entirety in terms of severity. These injuries as life-threatening and creating an immediate threat to life are qualified as serious harm to health. Death of Sh.A.S. It occurred as a result of shock and acute blood loss with a gross combined injury of the head, trunk and limbs with multiple fractures of the bones of the skeleton and extensive destruction of internal organs. At the time of Sh.A.S.'s death. was sober;

- a protocol for examining items and a resolution on the recognition and inclusion of material evidence in the criminal case dated September 17, 2012 - fragments and plastic elements, two sets of keys, two deployed airbags of a Mazda-3 car, white, license plate number;

and other materials of the criminal case.

Thus, the totality of the evidence examined at the hearing, allows the court to conclude that the guilt of C.A.K. violation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently caused the death of a person.

The court qualifies the actions of the defendant under Part 3 of Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When sentencing C.A.K. the court takes into account the degree of public danger of the crime committed, the identity of S.A.K., who has no previous convictions, is not registered with a narcologist and a psychiatrist, is characterized positively at the place of residence.

As circumstances, mitigating punishment S.A.K. the court takes into account his confession of guilt, remorse for his deed, the fact that he had no previous convictions, committed a crime of medium gravity for the first time, the presence of a dependent minor, born in 2003, a child; the state of health of his mother, who has a second disability group.

circumstances, aggravating the defendant, under Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not establish.

Based on the foregoing, taking into account the impact of punishment on the correction of the convict, the opinion of the victim, who asked him to severely punish, the court believes that C.A.K. should be sentenced to imprisonment.

Sufficient grounds for the application of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was not established by the court.

Considering the circumstances of the traffic accident, the behavior of the defendant, who left the scene of an accident, that he had previously been brought to administrative responsibility for violating the traffic regulations of the Russian Federation, the court considers it possible to appoint C.A.K. additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a maximum possible term, provided for by the sanction h. 3 Article. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of paragraph “a” h. 1 Article. 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation serving the sentence S.A.K. must be determined in the colony-settlement.

The Court considers that the grounds for changing the category of crime, in which S.A.K. found guilty, less serious, not available.

During the investigation of the case of the victim M.M.Oh. filed a civil action to recover from the civil defendant C.A.K. material damage associated with the cost of burial Sh.A.S. in the amount of 31,064 rubles, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 500,000 rubles, based on the physical and moral suffering of the victim. At the hearing M.M.Oh. fully supported these requirements.

At the hearing Sarkisov A.K. claim was accepted in full.

The case file contains documents confirming the fact of payment for services related to the burial of Sh.A.S. in the amount of 31064 rubles. In addition, at the hearing M.M.Oh. explained that after the death of her husband she experienced moral and physical suffering, as she was left alone, with two children dependent on her. The husband was the only breadwinner in the family. The death of a loved one caused her strong emotional experiences, psychological stress.

Under such circumstances, guided by the provisions of Articles 151, 1094, 1099-1101 Civil Code RF, the court considers it possible to satisfy the civil claim in full and recover from C.A.K. in favor of M.M.O. expenses associated with the burial of Sh.A.S., and compensation for non-pecuniary damage to total amount 531064 rubles.

Guided by Article.Article. 302-304; 307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, art. 151, 1094, 1099-1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation court

SENTENCED:

Recognize S.A.K. guilty of committing a crime, under Part. 3 Article. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentence him to imprisonment for a period of TWO years and six months with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of three years, with the sentence being served in a colony-settlement.

To the place of serving the sentence convicted C.A.K. follow independently at the expense of the state.

preventive measure C.A.K. before the entry into force of the verdict, leave the previous one - a written undertaking not to leave, and cancel it after the entry into force of the verdict.

Material evidence in the case: two keys, in black plastic from the car ignition, with the image of the badge of the car "Mazda"; return the key fob from the CENIMAX alarm in a black case to the owner of the Mazda car, license plate number; the rest - to destroy, after the entry into force of the verdict.

Civil action M.M.O. to S.A.K. for compensation for material damage and compensation for non-pecuniary damage to satisfy.

To collect from S.A.K., born in 1981, a native of Baku, in favor of M.M.O., born in 1969, a native of Moscow, 31,064 rubles as compensation for material damage, 500,000 rubles as compensation moral damage, and in total 531,064 (five hundred thirty-one thousand sixty-four) rubles.

The verdict can be appealed to the Moscow Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its announcement, and by the convict in custody - within the same period from the date of handing him a copy of the verdict.

If a cassation appeal is filed, the convict has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation within 10 days from the moment it was announced, and the convicted person held in custody - within the same period from the moment he was handed a copy of the verdict.

Case No. 1-297/2012

SENTENCE

In the name of the Russian Federation

Novgorodsky District Court of the Novgorod Region, composed of the presiding judge Nikitin A.N.,

with the participation of the public prosecutor, assistant prosecutor of Veliky Novgorod, Onkov D.R.,

victims of TEN and brm,

defendant and civil defendant Yashina O.B.,

defender of the defendant - lawyer Barashkov A.M., who presented the certificate <номер>and warrant <номер>dated March 05, 2012,

under the secretary Alexandrova E.M.,

Having considered in open court a criminal case in respect of:

Yashina ABOUT, <данные изъяты>, not previously judged,

accused of committing a crime under part 3,

installed:

On December 21, 2010, at about 08:50, the driver Yashina O.B. <данные изъяты> <номер>and carried out movement in the city of Veliky Novgorod along the highway with the message “OAO Akron-Luga Highway” in the direction from the highway “Luga Highway” towards JSC “ <данные изъяты>". When moving in this direction, in violation of the requirements of paragraph 10.1 (h.1) of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, Yashina Oh.B. did not take into account the road and meteorological conditions, in particular, the ice on the carriageway, chose the speed of the car she was driving - 60 km / h, while the chosen speed did not allow her to maintain constant control over the nature and direction of the car she was driving, due to what, Yashina O.B. lost control of her vehicle, as a result of which it skidded onto the lane of the carriageway intended for oncoming traffic, which was a violation of the requirements of clause 9.10 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, expressed in non-observance of a safe lateral interval relative to the imaginary center line of the carriageway . As a result of their actions, Yashina Oh.B. On December 21, 2010, at about 08:50 on the road with the Akron-Luga Highway OJSC in Veliky Novgorod, at a distance of about 350 m from the Luga Highway, she collided with a car. <данные изъяты>", state registration plate <номер>under the control of the driver BMI, moving in the direction of the city of Veliky Novgorod.

As a result of a traffic accident, the driver of the car " <данные изъяты>", state registration plate <номер> BMI, born in 1958, negligently caused bodily injuries in the form of a blunt chest injury, accompanied by a rupture of the aortic arch wall, hemorrhages in the roots of the lungs, soft tissues of the anterior chest wall, fractures of 5-9 ribs on the left, sternum, closed fracture of the left thigh, bruised wounds , bruises, abrasions of the face, torso. Death BMI came from a blunt chest injury in the form of a rupture of the wall of the aortic arch, followed by profuse internal bleeding.

These consequences are in a direct causal relationship with the actions of the driver Yashina O.B., expressed in violation of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation.

defendant Yashina Oh.B. at the court session, without disputing the consequences that arose as a result of a traffic accident involving a vehicle under her control, at the same time, she did not admit her guilt in the charge against her and showed that on December 21, 2012 she was driving a car " <данные изъяты>", under her management, went to work at OJSC" <данные изъяты>', the time was about 9 o'clock. It was very dark, fine snow, strong wind, the speed of her car was not more than 50 km/h. After descending from the "Viaduct" in front of the Luga Highway, she saw a car on the ring and let it through. She passed the ring Roundabout Circulation) and drove onto the road leading to. When she left the ring, two large cars drove out to meet her, she could not even see them, because it was very dark, she saw two large cars in the distance and one small car in size. She was driving along snowdrifts at low speed in second gear, drove about 300 meters from the turn and felt a push, the steering wheel went sharply to the left and she could not hold it, tried to level the steering wheel, the ABS light flashed and a second later she saw a car in front of her and there was a blow . She could not do anything and did not even have time to understand what had happened. Everything happened very quickly, she remembers that she started to slow down, the ABS light was constantly on, she tried to hold the steering wheel and level the car. He believes that the car ran into something or the wheel fell into a hole, as there was a push, and the car was thrown sharply into the oncoming lane. When her car was thrown into the oncoming lane, it almost immediately collided with an oncoming car. As a result of the collision, she lost consciousness for some time.

The court, having examined the evidence in the criminal case in their totality, came to the conclusion that the testimony of the defendant, which she gave at the court session, was unreliable, in terms of the speed of her vehicle immediately before the accident and the circumstances of the departure of the vehicle under her control into the lane intended for oncoming traffic, which may have occurred as a result of her car colliding with an obstacle or a wheel falling into a pit, as they contradict the testimony of witnesses, the conclusions of forensic auto-technical examinations, trace-autotechnical examination, and the materials of the criminal case. In addition, the testimony of the defendant Yashina O.B., given by her at the hearing, contradicts the testimony and the defendant herself, given by her during the preliminary investigation.

So, at the request of the public prosecutor at the court session, in connection with the existing significant contradictions in the testimony of the defendant given by her during the preliminary investigation and the court session, the defendant's testimony was read out as a suspect (volume 1, pp. 76 - 77), of which it followed that the speed of her vehicle immediately before the accident was 60 km / h, the defendant gave similar testimony during her interrogation as an accused (vol. 1, pp. 129-130), from which it also followed that Yashina O.B. , showed that the speed of the car she was driving immediately before the accident was 60 km / h. (this testimony of the defendant was given in the presence of her defense counsel, lawyer Mikhailov Yu.R., acting on the basis of a warrant<номер>).

Thus, regardless of the position taken by the defendant in the court session, her guilt is confirmed by the following evidence:

So injured BRM testified that on December 21, 2010, his father died in a traffic accident BMI, he himself was not an eyewitness to the accident. On this day, at about 10 hours 30 minutes, I learned from the neighbors that his father's car ( <данные изъяты>cherry blossom) collided with another vehicle. He arrived at the scene of the accident and saw the following: on the side of the roadway of the Akron ring, there was an Oka car in a snowdrift, and on the same roadway there was a Honda Civic car belonging to Yashina O.B., which the car collided with his father. Yashina O.B. there was no longer at the scene, there were investigators, there were also colleagues of the father, they helped to evacuate the father's car, the father was lying next to his car. Being at the scene, he realized that there was a head-on collision, because. there was a colossal destruction of the father's car from the driver's side, the front left wheel reached the rear. " <данные изъяты>"also received heavy damage from the driver's side, the left front of the car was broken. At the car" <данные изъяты>"The front part was completely damaged, the entire side panel (left and right), the hood, the windshield, but the main blow fell on the left side of the car. At the scene of a traffic accident, I saw investigators who were conducting an inspection. He was at the scene for 1-1.5 hours. It was winter, the road was cleared, but there was ice, so I can’t say for sure about the road surface. When he arrived, the roadside was cleared, the father's car was on a snow dump. On the section of the road where this traffic accident occurred, he himself drove at least 2 times a day, this is the road to Akron, which is being looked after, potholes are poured, there could not be potholes on the road. The following summer, a new section of the road was laid from the Akron ring towards Akron, about 300 meters long, but the road was not repaired at the place where there was a traffic accident, as it was in good condition.

defendant Yashina Oh.B. voluntarily compensated him for material damage and non-pecuniary damage, and he does not file a civil claim against her.

victim TEN showed that the last time her husband - BMI, she saw around 8 am December 21, 2010, when he left for work. Her mother told her about the incident at lunchtime. Regarding the circumstances of the tragedy that happened then, she only knows from the words that someone else's car drove into the oncoming lane and an accident occurred, her husband died. She is currently receiving a survivor's benefit in the amount of 5,000 rubles.

At the hearing, the victim TEN supported the civil claim for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 500,000 rubles and requested that it be recovered from the defendant.

From the testimony of a witness TND suggests that she arrived at the scene after it happened, apparently someone was driving past the scene of the accident and called them at work. When they arrived at the scene, she saw that The BMI was lying next to the car, and the woman driver had already been taken away in an ambulance. At that time, the police were already at the scene of the accident, and she was a witness, the second witness was a young man. The investigator suggested that she go to the car and observe the inspection process. The inspection took place in the presence of her and the second attesting witness, the investigator opened the car and examined it, she saw a book with paint colors in the car. The inspection of the car took 20-30 minutes, while the investigator did not get into the car. Was the key in the ignition of the car? <данные изъяты>” does not remember, did not pay attention to it. A car " <данные изъяты>”was in the direction of Akron, on the right side, where the passenger seat is, the door was open. She no longer remembers exactly what damage was on the machine, all her attention was directed to BMI The victim's car was all dented, only the back was more or less. The roadway where the accident occurred was wide, well cleared, but there was hard frost, the distance between the shoulders was large, six cars could pass. Whether the steering control of the car was checked at the scene of the traffic accident cannot be said for sure, since it froze and did not carefully observe the actions of the investigator.

At the hearing, the court found no reason to question the authenticity of the reports of the inspection of the scene in which TND., participated as a witness, since these protocols, both in form and in content, comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law for procedural documents.

When presenting at the court session to the witness the protocols of the inspection of the scene, the witness TND confirmed the authenticity of their signatures and the absence of any comments during the inspection.

Witness IVA showed that he was on " <данные изъяты>"I was driving to work in the morning (from 8 to 10) in the direction of the Akron chemical plant. The accident occurred 200-400 meters after turning to the side from the Akron roundabout. In front of his car and behind it were other cars, the numbers of which he does not remember. The car that was in front, as he later realized " <данные изъяты>”, was driving normally, the distance between his car and the one in front was 100-150 m, but then she was abruptly thrown into the oncoming lane, he did not see who was driving in the oncoming lane. After she was thrown into the oncoming lane, an accident occurred, the impact of two cars. The second car <данные изъяты>”was driving to a meeting in her lane, after the impact she went to the side of the road, the other car remained on the lane. " <данные изъяты>"hit a snowdrift and got stuck there. He stopped and went out to find out how he could help, the driver also stopped behind, in the car. <данные изъяты>”the driver was lying, leaning on the steering wheel, they called an ambulance and rescuers who came from Akron. They dragged the woman from the second car through the right door, as the left one was jammed. She moved and was in a state of shock, said that she was blinded. He had his headlights on. car " <данные изъяты>» before the traffic accident, he did not see, but with the high beam oncoming cars did not see. In addition, by road conditions the witness explained that somewhere it was covered with sand, but it was slippery, it was dawn, the road was not illuminated, there was a slight rut on the road. The speed of his car was about 60-70 km / h, the car in front was driving at about the same speed. The traffic on this section of the road is busy, but he does not remember whether there were other cars in the oncoming lane. After he left for work, with him the police officers had not yet arrived, the ambulance officers said that the driver “ <данные изъяты>» Help is no longer needed. At the car" <данные изъяты>» was dented left-hand side and he couldn't open the door. He believes that a car driven by a woman was to blame for the accident, which was thrown out, probably due to rutting. This section of the road was later repaired, it seems, in the spring of last year. At the time of the traffic accident, there were no obvious defects in the pavement on this section of the road; in winter everything was covered with snow, there were no large holes. Cars passed freely in different directions. He cannot say what happened to the defendant's car, but she just abruptly left, it seemed to him that the woman driver braked sharply, got scared of something, and she was abruptly thrown into the oncoming lane.

During the court session, due to significant contradictions, at the request of the public prosecutor, the testimony of the witness was read out IVA, given by him during the investigation (volume 1 pp. 106-107), which he fully confirmed, and explained that he forgot some points, since a lot of time had passed, and everything was written down in the protocol correctly based on recent events and he fully confirms.

Witness DAV testified that at about 8.30 am on December 21, 2010, he was driving to the Akron along the Luga Highway, further to the Akron site. He drove up to the ring on the Luga highway, gave way to two cars (" <данные изъяты>" And " <данные изъяты>”), drove for “ <данные изъяты>", before which was " <данные изъяты>”, drove 500-700 m., there was a collision <данные изъяты>And <данные изъяты>. Until the accident, he <данные изъяты>" have not seen. He saw how two cars collided, one car jumped to the side of the road, when he stopped he saw that there was “ <данные изъяты>". He got out of the car and approached together with the driver. <данные изъяты>" to " <данные изъяты>"felt the driver's pulse" <данные изъяты>”, called an ambulance and rescuers by phone. The pulse was palpable, but the driver was strongly clamped, there was no first aid. Behind the wheel " <данные изъяты>”There was a woman who was in deep shock, she had already got out of the car, there was no conversation with her as a current one. arrived ambulance, stated the fact of the death of the driver " <данные изъяты>". The witness also testified that he had driving experience since 2007 and he, as a driver, can assess the condition weather conditions and the roadway: a standard winter road, the road surface is in good condition, the road to Akron is always clean, it was dark, but the road was clearly visible, the shoulders were white, covered in snow, the road was packed and relatively flat, there was no snow. <данные изъяты>for some reason, she drove into the oncoming lane, but there were no obvious obstacles capable of changing the direction of movement, the road was flat. Whether there were ignition keys in the ignition lock of the car, Honda does not know, did not look into the salon.

TIN testified that on December 21, 2010 at 09.45 an acquaintance called him and said that he was driving home and saw a traffic accident involving a familiar car, probably B. After which the witness Tin dialed the phone B and the inspector answered him and said that there had been a traffic accident as a result of which B died on the spot. The inspector also explained that the woman drove into the oncoming lane, and asked to drive to the place where he arrived in 30 minutes. 15-20 minutes after his arrival, an investigator and some other employees arrived. He was asked to be witnessed, the rights of the witness were explained, and he participated in the inspection of the scene and two cars. He saw that the investigator was writing the protocol, partially saw what he was writing down in it, and before signing he read it briefly, not verbatim, checked for compliance with what he saw during the recording process, they did not sign blank sheets, the second witness signed the protocols simultaneously with him, no no one had any comments. car " <данные изъяты>”was badly broken, the engine went under the front seat, there were no glasses, everything was broken. The second car <данные изъяты>” was less broken, the front left wheel was square from the impact, the bumper, fender on the left side, everything was badly damaged. The investigator explained that <данные изъяты>" photographed the barrels with liquid, they were full and filled with liquid, the investigator also freely turned to " <данные изъяты>» steering wheel at 25-35 degrees, an inventory was made of things in the car, there seemed to be no key in the ignition, he no longer remembers, and the witness could not say whether the steering rods were examined at the scene of the traffic accident. During the examination, the second witness was present - a woman T, the traffic police inspector who inspected the road, also a traffic police officer was present when inspecting things in " <данные изъяты>". The inspection was carried out in daylight, everything was clearly visible. The road was cleaned perfectly, 4 plus (on a five-point scale), it snowed a little in the morning, there were no large holes or potholes, he often travels along this road, as he lives in<адрес>.

At the court session, due to the presence of significant contradictions, at the initiative of the court, the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident (volume 1 pp. 5-26) and the witness TIN explained that a typo was made in the protocol, these protocols are about him and are signed by him, and there was a mistake in the initials of his surname. In addition, the witness fully confirmed the accuracy of the information entered in the protocol of the inspection of the scene, including the explanation to him and the second attesting witness of the rights and obligations as an attesting witness.

Witness The USF testified that on December 21, 2010, he did not see the moment of the accident, but a mutual friend called him, said that she saw Yashina's car, which got into an accident, and he arrived there 1.5-2 hours later, as a friend and mechanic. The defendant's car was standing with a broken front, and " <данные изъяты>" lay with a broken engine compartment on the side of the road. At that time it was already dawn, there was snow, the road was cleared. At the time of the accident, he did not inspect the scene of the traffic accident, but later (in March 2011) he and his lawyer went to the scene of the traffic accident and saw big hole on the lane of Yashina O.B., he knew the place of the accident approximately (200-250 m from the ring), they found some plastic parts cars. He believes that it was the presence of this hole on the road that caused Yashina's car to be thrown (thrown) into the oncoming lane. In the hospital Yashin O.B. she said that she was blinded by an oncoming large car, she drove a little, she was pulled to the left, she tried to steer and then there was a blow.

At an offsite court session while examining a car " <данные изъяты> <номер>belonging to the defendant Yashina Oh.B. Participated in an automotive technician MAP (Head of the Department of Autotechnical Expertise of the ECC at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for NO, having a higher technical education, work experience since 1998), who showed that the play at the steering wheel is about two degrees, the steering wheel does not turn further, as it is blocked by the ignition switch, when inserted the key turns the steering wheel, the wheels are visually absent. As a result of a traffic accident, its mechanisms and components were disconnected.

Automotive specialist The OEB testified that in December 2010 he participated in the inspection of the scene of the accident of motor vehicles “ <данные изъяты>" And " <данные изъяты>”, It was daylight, the road was snowy, there was already an investigator, traffic police officers, Yashina O.B. was no longer there. He assisted the investigator in examining the scene and cars, in drawing up a protocol, a diagram of the scene. The cars were in disrepair, <данные изъяты>"was in the middle of the roadway," <данные изъяты>”was in a snowdrift on the right side, in the course of its movement. Wu " <данные изъяты>“The front part was damaged, the left front wheel was depressurized, the brake and steering systems were checked with the help of muscle strength and visually, the brakes seemed to be in good order, there was liquid in the brake system reservoirs. The inspection was carried out with the investigator and attesting witnesses, he asked someone to press the pedals, and he himself visually checked whether the wheels were slowing down, i.e. whether the pads are clamped, with the help of muscular strength, he checked how much the steering wheel turns and how many wheels, he rotated the steering wheel and looked at the left wheel through the side glass, then asked someone else to turn the steering wheel to look at the right wheel. The kinematic integrity of the steering system was not broken, the wheels rotated. Whether there was a key in the ignition, he does not remember, but he explained that the wheels still turn before the steering wheel locks. Also at " <данные изъяты>"The front bumper and fenders were damaged, he lifted the hood to check for fluid in the brake cylinder reservoir, there was fluid.

The specialist was presented for review the protocol of inspection of the scene (vol. 1 pp. 15-17), after which he confirmed the presence of his signatures in this protocol.

The guilt of the defendant is confirmed by the materials of the criminal case:

The protocol of inspection of the scene dated November 26, 2010 with a photo table and a diagram to it, according to which: the scene of a traffic accident is located in Veliky Novgorod on the highway with the message "OAO Akron-Luga Highway" on the right lane of the carriageway in the direction of travel from the JSC Akron in the direction of the Luga Highway at a distance of about 350 m from the Luga Highway. The carriageway is a horizontal profile, 8.5 meters wide, designed for movement in two directions. The condition of the coating - ice, snow roll. road markings missing. Automobile " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>is located on the left lane, relative to traffic towards Akron OJSC, with its front towards Akron OJSC, at a distance of 5 meters from the front left and rear left wheels of the vehicle to the edge of the carriageway and at a distance of 367.3 meters from the rear left the wheels of the car to the motorway "Luga highway". Automobile " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>is located on the left side of the road in the direction of JSC Akron, with the front part in a snow-covered dump, with the rear part on the carriageway, at a distance of 350 meters from the Luga Highway to the rear left wheel of the car. The scree of plastic and glass of cars is partly on the left lane of the roadway, relative to the movement in the direction of JSC Akron, and partially on the left side of the road relative to the movement of this direction. At a distance of 5 meters from the dump, on the left side, relative to the movement to Akron OJSC, there is a scree of plastic and glass of vehicles on the roadway, at a distance of 5.3 meters from the dump, on the left side relative to the movement to Akron OJSC, there are fragments car bumper " <данные изъяты>, also at a distance of 2.3 meters from the front right wheel of this car, at the snow dump on the left side, in the direction of Akron OJSC, there are fragments of the car bumper " <данные изъяты>", as well as a scree of plastic and other car parts" <данные изъяты>” measuring 3.8x4.2 meters, partly on the right side of the road, partly on the right lane of the carriageway in the direction of travel to the Luga Highway. At a distance of 3 meters from the rear left wheel of the car " <данные изъяты>”, near the left snow-covered dump, when moving towards Akron OJSC, there is a fragment of the bumper of the car“ <данные изъяты>". During the inspection, the front left wheel of the car was seized. <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>, with traces of disk deformation and depressurization (Vol. 1, pp. 5-9,10, 11-14);

<данные изъяты>» state registration plate <данные изъяты>, and the presence of damage characteristic of their formation in the conditions of a traffic accident was established. Damage to the car is of a pronounced emergency nature and is localized in the front left side of the vehicle. The direction of deformation is from front to back and from left to right. Damaged: deformed hood, front fenders, front left door, front left pillar, roof, missing bumper, radiator lining, damaged radiator, damaged rear left fender, right door and right rear fender. The front left wheel is depressurized, the other wheels of the vehicle are under pressure. The front headlight was broken, the left front turn signal was torn off from its intended place. Windshield broken, left door glass missing. The kinematic integrity of the steering mechanism is not broken. The steering and brake system are in good order (volume 1, case file 15-20);

Minutes of the inspection of the scene of the incident dated December 21, 2010, according to which the car was examined " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>and the presence of damage characteristic of their formation in the conditions of a traffic accident was established. Damage to the car is of a pronounced emergency nature and is localized in the front left side of the vehicle. The direction of deformation is from front to back and from left to right. Damaged: the entire front of the car, hood, front fenders, left A-pillar, roof. Deformed: rear fender, front suspension. The engine and gearbox have been torn from their intended place. The kinematic integrity of the steering mechanism is broken. Missing: front headlights, side direction indicators, windshield and rear windows. The front left wheel is pressed into the passenger compartment and depressurized, the remaining wheels are under pressure (volume 1, files 21-26);

Minutes of inspection of objects dated February 22, 2011, according to which the left front wheel of the car was examined " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>withdrawn during the inspection on December 21, 2010. On the disk of the wheel, the deformation of the outer rim is seen, directed towards the center of rotation of the wheel. Deformation of the inner rim. On the side of the tire there are markings " <данные изъяты>". There are two through damages on the outer sidewall of the tire, which are located opposite the deformation of the outer rim of the disk (volume 1, ld 111-112);

The conclusion of the trace-autotechnical forensic examination <номер>dated February 22, 2011, according to which, in the studied traffic situation, the driver of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>should have been guided in his actions by the requirements of clause 10.1 (part 1) and clause 9.10 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation. In the actions of the driver of the car <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>found to be inconsistent with the traffic rules RF. From a technical point of view, in the case of their complete and timely implementation, the driver could (had the opportunity) to prevent this accident. In the investigated traffic situation, the driver of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>should have been guided in his actions by the requirements of clause 10.1 (part 2) of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation. In the considered traffic situation, the driver of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>did not have the technical ability to prevent an accident. At the same time, from a technical point of view, inconsistencies specified requirements The rules are not seen in his actions. Depressurization of the tire of the left front wheel of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>was the result of a rupture of the outer and inner sidewall of the tire and deformation of the disk, and could not have occurred if free movement Vehicle on the roadway before the accident, i.e. could not be the cause of this accident (volume 1, pp. 97-101);

Extract from the Rules of the road of the Russian Federation:

Clause 10.1 (part 1) “The driver must drive the vehicle at a speed not exceeding the established limit, taking into account the traffic intensity, the characteristics and condition of the vehicle, road and meteorological conditions, in particular, visibility in the direction of travel. The speed must provide the driver with the possibility of constant control over the movement of the vehicle in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules ... "

Clause 9.10 “The driver must comply with ... the necessary lateral spacing that ensures traffic safety” (volume 1, case sheet 98);

The conclusion of the forensic medical examination <номер>dated February 21, 2011, according to which death BMI, born in 1958, followed as a result of blunt chest trauma in the form of a rupture of the wall of the aortic arch, followed by profuse internal bleeding. When examining a corpse BMI established the following bodily injuries: blunt chest trauma, accompanied by rupture of the aortic arch wall, hemorrhages in the roots of the lungs, soft tissues of the anterior chest wall, fractures of 5-9 ribs on the left, sternum, closed fracture of the left thigh, bruised wounds, bruises, facial abrasions, torso. These bodily injuries BMI suffered serious bodily harm on the grounds of danger to life, resulting in death. The above damages were formed from the impact of blunt, hard objects, possibly under the circumstances of an accident, while BMI was as a driver. At the same time, the traumatic force relative to the victim acted from front to back and somewhat from left to right. During a forensic chemical examination of blood from a corpse BMI ethanol was not detected (Vol. 1, pp. 88-90);

Expert opinion <номер>dated November 26, 2012, according to which, when examining a car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>it was found that the left (in the direction of the vehicle) part of the front suspension, together with the elements of the vehicle body deformed as a result of a traffic accident, was shifted back relative to its structurally provided location. At the same time, it was found that the lower arm of the front suspension on the left side was deformed. This damage to the lower arm is purely emergency in nature, i.e. formed as a result of this traffic accident and could not be its cause. The remaining parts and assemblies of the front suspension on the left side have no visible damage. No damage was found to parts and assemblies of the front suspension on the right side. The study of the rear suspension of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>no damage or malfunctions were found. The units and parts of the rear suspension are installed in the structurally provided places and secured in the manner established by the manufacturer. At the time of the study, the car " <данные изъяты>» there is no left front wheel, a spare part-size spare wheel (stowaway) is used as the left rear wheel, the right front and right rear wheels have disks that are different from each other in shape and stamping pattern. The rear wheels of the presented vehicle are fixed with four special wheel nuts. The right front wheel of the vehicle is secured with two special wheel nuts, it being established that the diameter of the circumference of the mounting holes of the disk of the front right wheel is less than the diameter of the circumference of the location of the fixing pins of the wheel hub. That is, the specified disk is not intended for installation on this vehicle. The right front and left rear wheels are in a depressurized state. Studded tires are installed on the disks of the right front and right rear wheels. <данные изъяты>» size 155/80 R13 79Q. The residual height of the tread pattern on the tires of the right wheels is less than 1.6 mm.

According to the protocols of inspections of the scene and the vehicle, as well as the photo table available in the materials of the criminal case, by car " <данные изъяты>» 4 wheels are installed, the left front wheel is in a depressurized state. The left front wheel was removed from the vehicle for testing. Wheel rims installed on the vehicle <данные изъяты>» at the time of the inspection of the scene of the incident, do not visually differ from each other, but differ from those installed on this vehicle at the time of the inspection.

Thus, the indicated damage to the steering and chassis are purely emergency in nature, i.e. formed as a result of this traffic accident and could not be its cause.

During the off-site court session, when the court inspected the vehicle " <данные изъяты>» from the testimony of the defendant, it was established that after the accident, during the period of storage of the car in the parking lot, a replacement was made rims on non-standard by others. These circumstances are not subject to assessment by the court, as they are not the subject of research.

Assessing the above evidence in their entirety, the court considers that the reliability, admissibility of the evidence presented on the charge, incriminated by Yashina Oh.B. the court is not in doubt. They are received, fixed and researched in accordance with the current legislation.

The court qualifies the actions of the defendant Yashina Oh.B. - under part 3 - as a violation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently entailed the death of a person.

The guilt of the defendant is fully proved by the evidence collected in the case. The court considers it necessary to analyze the collected evidence and refute the arguments of the defendant regarding the fact that the traffic accident occurred not through her fault, but through the fault of the steering mechanism, which occurred as a result of a car hitting some obstacle or a wheel falling into a pit.

The court reliably established from the testimony of the defendant herself, taken as a basis, which she gave during the preliminary investigation, that the speed of her vehicle was about 60 km / h, which is also confirmed by the testimony of a witness IVA who was moving in a car " <данные изъяты>” under his control behind a car driven by Yashina O.B., at a distance of about 100 - 150 meters, while he testified that the speed of his car was about 60 - 70 km / h, while the distance between his car and Yashina’s car during the movement did not decrease, which objectively indicates that the vehicles were moving at the same speed, at least 60 km / h. According to the expert's opinion <номер>dated November 26, 2012, it was found that damage to the steering and chassis on the car " <данные изъяты>” owned by Yashin are purely emergency in nature, i.e. formed as a result of this accident and could not be its cause. This conclusion indicates that immediately before car accident « <данные изъяты>» had no technical damage or malfunctions of the steering and running gear, which could cause the car to become uncontrollable and then enter the lane intended for oncoming traffic.

Moreover, from the testimony of witnesses DAV., IVA, protocols of inspection of the scene, testimonies of attesting witnesses TND, TIN, it was objectively established that the road surface had no obvious damage, no obstacles, there were no holes and potholes on the road, the road had a smooth snow surface, was cleaned and had a slight rut.

Thus, at the trial, it was found that external factors which could cause the uncontrollability of the vehicle, subject to the rules of the road, as well as taking into account road and meteorological conditions, choosing the required speed of the vehicle, are absent and the case materials have not been established. The side of the defense did not provide objective data indicating that any irregularities in the road surface, including pits in the area of ​​the accident that occurred, caused other road traffic accidents in a period of time calculated in hours, days. This indicates that a particular accident is connected precisely with the subjective signs of driving a vehicle, non-compliance with traffic rules prescribing the need to drive a vehicle, taking into account road and meteorological conditions and choosing the necessary speed. The court found that the ice on the road did not allow Yashina Oh.B. to exercise constant control over the nature and direction of movement of the vehicle controlled by her, taking into account her chosen speed of 60 km / h, and the chosen speed of Yashina O.B. obviously did not correspond to road and meteorological conditions.

The conclusion of the trace-autotechnical forensic examination <номер>dated February 22, 2011, it was found that in the investigated traffic situation, the driver of the car " <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>should have been guided in his actions by the requirements of clause 10.1 (part 1) “The driver must drive the vehicle at a speed not exceeding the established limit, taking into account the traffic intensity, features and condition of the vehicle, road and meteorological conditions, in particular, visibility in the direction of travel. The speed should provide the driver with the ability to constantly monitor the movement of the vehicle to comply with the requirements of the Rules ... "and clause 9.10 of the SDA of the Russian Federation" The driver must comply with ... necessary lateral spacing to ensure traffic safety” (Volume 1, case sheet 98).

In the actions of the driver of the car <данные изъяты>» state registration plate <номер>non-compliance with the specified requirements of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation is seen. From a technical point of view, in the case of their complete and timely implementation, the driver could (had the opportunity) to prevent this accident.

Thus it is between violation Yashina Oh.B. of the rules of the road provided for in paragraph 10.1 (part 1) and paragraph 9.10 and the consequences that have occurred, there is a direct causal relationship and it is the non-observance of these traffic rules by Yashina O.B., the lack of constant control on her part over the nature and direction of movement of the controlled by her car and was the reason that Yashina Oh.B. lost control of her vehicle, as a result of which it skidded onto the lane of the carriageway intended for oncoming traffic.

At the hearing, at the initiative of the defense, a witness was interrogated DSF, from whose testimony it follows that in March 2011, together with a lawyer, he went to the area of ​​the accident and saw a large hole on the road in the lane of Yashina O.B., which was located in the area of ​​the accident. In his opinion, the indicated pit could have been the reason for the uncontrolled exit of the car driven by Yashina into the lane intended for oncoming traffic.

The court considers that the testimony of the witness in this part is not objectively confirmed, refuted by the evidence examined at the court session and the legal assessment of the evidence given by the court. The indicated pit was discovered by a witness only in March 2011, i.e. after more than 3 months from the moment of the accident, the indicated damage to the road surface was found without reference to the location, to the accident and could have formed in a different period of time after the accident. Objective data about what at the moment traffic accident the coating had obvious defects (potholes, pits) no, and the court gave an analysis to this circumstance. In addition, according to the protocol of the inspection of the scene, it was established that the accident occurred at a distance of about 350 m from the Luga highway, and the witness found a hole at a distance of about 200-250 meters, which clearly contradicts circumstances of the accident, according to which the car abruptly “threw” into the lane intended for oncoming traffic and immediately collided with an oncoming car, and it objectively could not drive about 100-150 meters from the moment it hit an obstacle until the moment it collided with another vehicle.

In addition, the court completely eliminated the contradictions in checking the serviceability of the steering mechanism of the car " <данные изъяты>»when examining the scene of the incident and a forensic autotechnical examination was carried out with a study of the steering mechanism, based on the results of which the court gave an analysis.

The court also did not find objective confirmation of the defendant's argument that she could be blinded by an oncoming vehicle. From the testimony of a witness IVA, which was directly following the defendant's car, it follows that no vehicles were moving in the opposite direction, except for the car " <данные изъяты>"he did not see, while on the a / m" <данные изъяты>"The low beam of the headlights was on, he did not see other cars moving with high beam headlights in the opposite direction.

When imposing a punishment on the defendant, the court, in accordance with the law, takes into account the social danger and the nature of the deed, the identity of the perpetrator, the circumstances of the crime committed, the impact of the punishment imposed on the correction of the convict and the living conditions of her family.

The Court considers that Yashinoy Oh.B. negligently committed a crime of moderate gravity, directed against traffic safety, Yashina Oh.B. has no previous convictions, has not been brought to administrative responsibility, is not registered in psycho-neurological and narcological dispensaries, is characterized positively at the place of residence and work (vol. 1 ld 117; 118; 119; 120; 121; repeatedly encouraged thank you letters Mayor of V. Novgorod; certificates of honor (vol. 2 ld 45 - 46).

circumstances, mitigating punishment Yashina Oh.B. the court recognizes in accordance with Part 2 - the age and state of health of the defendant, voluntary compensation for material damage and moral damage to the victim BRM, partial compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the victim TEN

Circumstances, aggravating punishment provided by the court is not established.

Taking into account the circumstances and severity committed by Yashina Oh.B. crime, data on the identity of the defendant, who has not previously been held accountable for any kind of crime, is not registered anywhere, is characterized exclusively on the positive side, the court considers it necessary to sentence her to imprisonment, which is commensurate with the deed and meets the objectives of Part 2 . At the same time, taking into account all mitigating circumstances: age and state of health, voluntary compensation for damage to one of the victims, the opinions of the public prosecutor and the victims who believed to apply to the defendant, the court considers that the correction of the defendant is possible without real isolation of her from society with application to her and establishing probationary period during which the convicted person must prove her correction by her behavior.

In addition, the court considers it necessary to impose on the defendant an additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, since the defendant committed a crime in the field of traffic safety and transport operation.

Based on the circumstances of the crime committed, the consequences that have occurred, the court finds no reason to reduce the category of crime in accordance with Part 6.

Victims BRM has not filed a civil suit.

Victim's civil action TEN on account of compensation for material damage caused as a result of the death of the breadwinner BMI, on TEN, and BAM., according to the average monthly earnings BMI for 2010 in the amount of 26,896 rubles 34 kopecks (excluding a lump sum payment - vacation compensation in the amount of 59,698 rubles 10 kopecks) and with Yashina O.B. in favor TEN should recover damages as a result of the death of the breadwinner in the amount of 35,861 rubles 80 kopecks for the period from December 21, 2010 to April 21, 2011 and 8965 rubles 45 kopecks monthly from April 22, 2011 to March 14, 2012, also damage as a result of death breadwinner BAM born on September 14, 2010 in the amount of 35,861 rubles 80 kopecks for the period from December 21, 2010 to April 21, 2011 and for 8965 rubles 45 kopecks monthly from April 22, 2011 to September 14, 2028 - the court considers it necessary to recognize by law and the issue on its consideration to submit for consideration in civil proceedings.

In terms of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court considers it necessary, based on the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, and also taking into account the property status of the defendant, to partially satisfy the claim in the amount of 150,000 rubles, since the guilty actions of the defendant victim TEN suffered moral suffering.

Claims of the victim In terms of reimbursement of expenses for paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 6,000 rubles, the court recognizes by right and leaves for consideration in civil proceedings, since no evidence was presented at the court session confirming the above amount.

Physical evidence must be disposed of in accordance with:

The left front wheel of the car <данные изъяты>» G.N.Z. <номер>- located in the storage room of the SU at the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Novgorod Region, after the entry into force of the verdict, it should be returned to Yashina O.B.;

The steering wheel, ignition keys, steering column and steering shaft stored during the criminal case, after the entry into force of the sentence, should be returned to O. B. Yashina.

Guided by Articles 307-309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

sentenced:

Recognize Yashin OB guilty of committing a crime under part 3 and sentence her to 2 (two) years in prison with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 3 (three) years.

If a conditionally convicted person evaded the performance of the duties assigned to her by the court or committed a violation of public order for which she was brought to administrative responsibility, the court, on the proposal of the FIA, may extend the probationary period, but not more than for one year;

If a conditionally convicted person during the probationary period systematically violated public order, for which she was brought to administrative responsibility, systematically failed to fulfill the duties assigned to her by the court or hid from control, the court, on the proposal of the FIA, may decide to cancel the probation and execute the sentence imposed by the court verdict.

Judge Novgorod District Court: A.N. Nikitin

ULYANOVSK REGIONAL COURT

Judge ***Case No. 22-3638/2012

C A S A C I O N N O EO P R E D E L E N I E

Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court consisting of:

presiding Beshanova S.N.,

judges Malysheva D.V., Erofeeva E.Yu.,

under Secretary A.E. Pelkin

considered in open court on October 24, 2012 , the cassation complaint of the representative of the victim C*** – Grigorieva E.A., the cassation submission of the deputy prosecutor of the Zavolzhsky district Golubtsov The.AND. to the verdict of the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated September 03, 2012, by which

ALBUTOV A*** A***,

*** not previously convicted,

acquitted on charges of committing a crime under Part. 3 Article. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the lack of corpus delicti.

A preventive measure in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior in relation to Albutov A.A. cancelled.

Explained to Albutov A.A. the right to rehabilitation in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Having heard the report of Judge Malyshev D.The., speeches of the representative of the victim – Grigorieva E.A., victim C***, acquitted Albutov A.A., lawyer Grishin The.AND. in the interests of Albutov ***, prosecutor Golubtsov V.I., judicial board

U T A N O V I L A:

The verdict of the court Albutov A.A. acquitted on charges of committingcrime under part 3 Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, for violation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently caused the death of a person.

In the appeal the representative of the victim C*** – Grigorieva E.A. considers the verdict of the court unlawful and unreasonable, believes that the conclusions of the court do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. The court did not give a full assessment and a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution. He believes that the objective side of the crime under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the prosecution proved in full, and the conclusion of the court that Albutov A.A. paragraphs of the Rules of the road were not violated, not based on the case file. Thus it is when sentencing the court was incorrectly applied criminal law, which in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the basis for the annulment of a court verdict on cassation. He asks for the verdict of the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk from 03.09.2012 in relation to Albutov A.A. rescind and remand the case for retrial.

In the cassation submission, Deputy Prosecutor of the Zavolzhsky District Golubtsov The.AND. considers the verdict of the court illegal and subject to cancellation. He believes that the links of the court to the video recording, from which it follows that C*** ignored the instructions of Albutov A.A. move away from the overpass and the evidence for him of the maneuver of movement in reverse, cannot serve as a basis for non-compliance with the driver Albutov A.A. paragraph 8.12 of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation, in view of the fact that it was the arrogance of Albutov A.A. that both C*** and other persons in the warehouse will be careful and will not be in the way of his vehicle when reversing, cannot serve as a basis for justifying Albutov A.A., since, did not release the driver Albutov A.A. from the obligation to fulfill the specified paragraph of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation on the involvement of third parties who would control the movement. Indicates that it was the arrogance and frivolity of the driver Albutov A.A., who was reversing in the absence of visibility behind the vehicle, uncontrollably, in violation of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation on the need to involve third parties, led to a traffic accident. The conclusions of the court that the victim himself was in fact such a person are not based on the circumstances established in the case and the evidence examined, they are far-fetched, untrue. He considers the verdict contradictory, the circumstances established in the case indicate that the statutory Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation by the driver Albutov A.A. have not been fulfilled. He asks the verdict to be canceled, the case to be sent for a new trial.

In objections to the cassation representation lawyer Grishin The.AND. in the interests of the acquitted Albutov A.A. points out that the court verdict sets out in detail the grounds for such a fair, lawful and reasoned decision. Expresses disagreement with the arguments set forth in the cassation submission. Indicates that the deputy prosecutor of the Zavolzhsky district of Ulyanovsk - Golubtsov The.AND. He was not a participant in the trial of this case, so he could not understand in detail the circumstances of the incident. In the course of the same trial, it was unequivocally established that when the car was reversing Albutov A.A. took all necessary measures to carry out this maneuver. This was confirmed by all interrogated witnesses. Moreover, Albutov A.A. warned C*** about the need to move away from the gate into the depths of the warehouse, which he did and was at a safe distance (at least 2 meters) from the gate. Inside the warehouse, a car driven by Albutov A.A. I couldn’t pass, because the warehouse is located at a height of about one meter from the road surface and has limiters (fenders). In addition to the testimonies of witnesses, this is also confirmed by objective evidence: the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident, the video recording of surveillance cameras. Believes that in this case there is only the fact of innocent infliction of death, since in the actions of Albutov A.A. does not contain the main element of the subjective side of the corpus delicti - guilt. It also expresses disagreement with the arguments set forth in the appeal of the representative of the injured party - Grigorieva E.A. This complaint does not provide any significant arguments about the groundlessness and illegality of the sentence, but simply supports the accusatory position of the prosecutor's office. No incorrect application of the criminal law, as stated in the complaint, was allowed by the court. He asks for an acquittal of the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated 03.09.2012 against Albutov A.A. left unchanged, and the cassation submission of the deputy prosecutor of the Zavolzhsky district of Ulyanovsk and the cassation appeal of the representative of the victim - without satisfaction.

At the court session:

Victim C***, representative of the victim E.A. Grigorieva, prosecutor Golubtsov The.AND. supported the arguments of the complaint and the cassation submission, asked to cancel the verdict of the court.

acquitted Albutov A.A. lawyer Grishin V.I. objected to the arguments of the complaint and the cassation presentation.

After checking the case materials, discussing the arguments of the cassation appeal and presentation, after listening to the speeches of the participants in the process, the judicial board finds the verdict lawful, reasonable and fair.

The arguments of the cassation appeal and the cassation representation of the public prosecutor to the effect that the acquittal against Albutov A.A. decided on incorrectly assessed and inadmissible evidence, as well as that during the trial the requirements of the criminal procedure law were violated, the judicial board finds untenable.

On the contrary, having carefully examined the evidence presented by the parties and giving them a correct assessment, the court came to a reasonable conclusion that Albutov A.A. did not commitviolation by a person driving a car of the rules of the road, which negligently caused the death of a person.

According to the panel of judges, the court justifiably recognized the evidence of the prosecution as insufficient to reach a guilty verdict, convincingly motivating its conclusions.

The court, in the opinion of the panel of judges, reliably established that 03/07/2012 at about 19 hours 55 minutes Albutov A.A., driving a car VOLVO F 16 c r.z. ***, arrived at the territory of the warehouse LLC "K ***", located at the address: U ***, *** passage, building 1. There Albutov A.A. in order to unload the car, giving a warning sound signal and with active light signals, he began to reverse to the warehouse gate No. 3 of K*** LLC, controlling the movement of the car in the rear-view mirrors. At the same time, C***, who worked at this warehouse as a forwarding warehouseman and, being in the warehouse, regulated the supply of the car to the unloading rack with his instructions. When the car approached the flyover, Albutov A.A. warned C*** to move away from its edge, which he did. However, then, C ***, being inside the warehouse, unexpectedly for Albutov A.A. approached the edge of the overpass, after which his head was between the body of the car that had not finished moving and the frame of the warehouse gate. As a result, C*** an open craniocerebral injury was caused, qualified as a serious bodily injury on the basis of danger to life at the time of infliction and which caused his death at the scene.

Albutov A.A. showed that, driving a car under the above circumstances, he took all necessary measures for safety when reversing.

In justification of guilt Albutova A.A. The prosecution presented the following evidence:

Witness G*** testified that on March 7, 2012, at about 7:55 p.m., he and Albutov arrived at the warehouse of K*** LLC, located at the address: U*** proezd, building 1. By car VOLVO , on which they arrived, was managed by Albutov. He went inside the warehouse to hand over the documents for the goods to his head P***, and Albutov remained outside to wait for the forwarding storekeeper. The storekeeper C***, at the direction of P***, together with Albutov removed the seals from the van. Then C*** climbed onto the unloading rack of the warehouse and remained standing on the ramp. Albutov got into the passenger compartment of the car and, having filed sound signal, began to reverse to the open gates of the warehouse. C*** gave Albutov signs with his hands, indicating when to stop. After driving a few tens of centimeters, Albutov opened the cab door and told C*** to move away from the gate. C*** went inside the warehouse. At this time, he turned away and turned back when he heard the car come to a stop, resting on the bumpers. I saw C*** fall on the ramp of the unloading rack. There was blood on his face. He immediately informed P*** about what had happened, and they called an ambulance.

Witness P*** testified that on March 7, 2012, at about 7:55 p.m., a car arrived at the warehouse where he worked as a manager. VOLVO , under the control of Albutov. With him was the loader-forwarder G ***. He sent forwarding warehouseman C*** to the truck to inspect and remove the seal on the truck. He himself remained in the office. A few minutes later I heard a car horn. After another 4-6 minutes, G *** ran into the office, who said that C *** had been crushed when the car was being brought to the unloading overpass. Going to the overpass, he saw C *** lying on the floor of the warehouse, without signs of life. Subsequently, I learned that while the car was being parked, C*** was inside the warehouse and suddenly stuck his head out into the street.

Witness A*** testified that he was individual entrepreneur. He owns a car VOLVO F 16, gr. ***, which is used as a commercial vehicle. This car was driven by Albutov A.A., who worked for him on employment contract. The car is in good condition. He had no complaints about the driver Albutov. On 03/07/2012, at about 20:00, Albutov called him, who said that he had run over a loader in the territory of the warehouse of K *** LLC, moving in reverse. Subsequently, Albutov explained that when moving back, he fulfilled all the necessary requirements: he gave a sound signal, light signals backward movements were also included.

From the testimony of the traffic police inspector R *** it follows that on March 7, 2012, at about 19 hours and 55 minutes, a report about an accident was received from the duty officer. Arriving at the scene - the territory of the warehouses of K*** LLC at the address: U*** passage, building 1, they found a car VOLVO F 16, gr. *** , which stood with its back to the open warehouse gate. On the unloading rack of the warehouse was the body of a man. Car driver VOLVO Albutov explained that he had come to the warehouse for unloading. Tore the seals off the body and opened its doors. The victim, C***, being on the unloading overpass, said that the car could be brought to the overpass. After that, Albutov got into the cab and began to perform a reverse maneuver to the open gates of the warehouse until he ran into rubber bumpers. Put the car on the parking brake. G*** found out from the storekeeper that he had hit C***.

From the protocol of inspection of the site of the traffic accident dated March 7, 2012, it follows that it occurred on the territory of the warehouse of K*** LLC at the address: U*** passage, building 1.

During inspection of the vehicle, general form car VOLVO F 16 ***.

According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the cause of death of C*** was an open craniocerebral injury, manifested by bruised wounds, abrasions on the head, hemorrhages in the soft tissues of the head, an open fracture of the bones of the vault and base of the skull on the right and left, hemorrhages under the meninges of the brain, contusion with destruction of brain stem tissue. An open craniocerebral injury was life-threatening and qualifies as causing grievous bodily harm. All injuries found on the corpse were formed in vivo, shortly before the onset of death, from the action of blunt solid objects with considerable force. Could have been obtained from a single squeezing of the head in the transverse direction between parts of a moving car and a blunt hard object under the circumstances set out in the decision on the appointment of the SME.

From the conclusion of the autotechnical forensic examination, it follows that in the presented traffic situation, the driver of the car VOLVO F 16 when driving before the incident, he should have been guided by the requirements of paragraphs 1.3, 1.5. 8.12 of the Rules of the road of the Russian Federation.

The victim C*** testified at the court session that C*** learned about her husband's death in the evening of 03/07/2012 from an employee of the company where he worked. Later she learned that when the car began to back out, the husband was between the car and the building and crushed his head.

After analyzing the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court came to a reasonable conclusion that it was not possible to conclude on their basis that Albutov A.A. was guilty.

As the court rightly pointed out, the evidence cited by the prosecution quite fully reflects the circumstances preceding and accompanying the incident, however, in itself cannot serve as a basis for an unambiguous conclusion about the guilt of Albutov A.A.

The Court of First Instance was reliably established that Albutov A.A. when reversing, under the existing conditions, he took sufficient measures to safely perform this maneuver. As follows from the testimony of witnesses G***, P*** Albutov A.A. beeping while reversing. The victim knew about the purpose and nature of the maneuver carried out by Albutov A.A., while he actually assisted Albutov A.A. when moving his car backwards. Also from the testimony of witness T*** it follows that Albutov A.A. warned C*** about the need to retreat deep into the warehouse, which he did. At the same time, the court took into account that the car Albutova A.A. could not drive completely into the territory of the warehouse, since it was limited by a structure - a warehouse overpass, which was equipped with a bump stop, that is, the car could not move further than the overpass. The panel of judges agrees with the conclusions of the court.

During the court session, a video recording from a surveillance camera installed in the warehouse was examined. In this case, the court made the correct conclusion that from the said record it follows that it is clear that the car running Albutov A.A. is moving in reverse at low speed with the rear lights on. In this case, the victim is at a sufficient distance from the vehicle to ensure safety. Relative to the warehouse gate, the car was moving in the right direction. As it was reliably established at the court session, there were no reasons to interfere with his movement.

assert that Albutov A.A. should have foreseen the actions of C***, who unexpectedly, ignoring Albutov's instructions to move away from the overpass, again approached the car, as the court made the correct conclusion, there were no grounds. The victim was sober, the maneuver of the car was obvious to him, and the court has no reason to doubt his adequate perception of the events. The panel of judges agrees with the conclusions of the court.

As the court rightly pointed out, criminal negligence occurs only on the condition that the person does not foresee the onset of harmful consequences, however, with the necessary care and foresight, he should have and could have foreseen their onset. As was authentically established by the trial court, in the existing conditions Albutov A.A. took sufficient measures to ensure the safety of the maneuver and could not foresee the described actions of C***

As the court correctly pointed out, the evidence of the prosecution does not convince that the driver Albutov A.A. requirements of paragraphs 1.3, 1.5. 8.12 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation were ignored.

Given by the court proper assessment and arguments to the effect that Albutov A.A. had to enlist the help of others. As the court rightly pointed out, they are unconvincing, since, as noted above, the victim was in fact such a person himself. There was no need to involve other persons observing the maneuver outside the warehouse, since, due to its design features(the presence of curtains around the perimeter of the gate), they would not be able to observe what is happening inside the premises.

In the opinion of the panel of judges, the court made the correct conclusion that the driver Albutov A.A. clauses of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation were not violated, therefore the incident in question is a case that does not entail criminal liability.

Thus, all the circumstances in the case, set out by the public prosecutor in the presentation and the representative of the victim in the complaint, were presented to the parties and examined at the court session, they are given in the court verdict and they were given a proper assessment. The court rightly pointed out that, taking into account the totality of the examined evidence, there are no sufficient grounds for recognizing Albutov A.A. guilty of a crime.

Contrary to the arguments of the presentation and the complaint, the acquittal meets the requirements of Art. 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On the Judgment". It indicates the circumstances established by the court, analyzes the evidence substantiating the court's conclusion about the innocence of Albutov A.A. The verdict is based on admissible and reliable evidence examined in court. At the same time, the court also checked the arguments of the prosecution, and gave them a proper assessment.

Thus, having carefully examined the evidence presented by the parties and giving them an assessment in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court justified Albutov A.A. on the basis of paragraph.2 h.1 Article. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation - due to the absence of corpus delicti in the act.

The trial of the case was held in accordance with the procedure established by law, while observing the principles of adversarial and equal rights of the parties. The general conditions of the trial, including the condition of immediacy and oral examination of evidence, were also fully complied with.

Any violations of the requirements of criminal procedure and criminal laws, other legislative acts, the court did not allow. In this regard, in the opinion of the Judicial Board, there are no grounds for satisfying the complaint and presentation.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 377, 378 and 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium

ABOUT D E L I L A:

The verdict of the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated September 03, 2012 in relation to Albutov A*** A*** is left unchanged, the cassation appeal and the cassation presentation are not satisfied.

presiding