Pledge of innocence for intentional injury one
Appellant: Wang xx, male,1born on July 25th, 956, Han nationality, living in xx village, xx township, xx county.
Now detained in xx county detention center.
The appellant refuses to accept the criminal judgment of xx County People's Court (2008) No.28 on July 23, 2008 on the case of intentional injury and criminal incidental civil compensation, and now appeals.
Appeal and beg
1. Request the court of second instance to cancel the original judgment and acquit the appellant according to law.
2. Reject the claim for compensation of incidental civil plaintiffs Wang xx and Wang xx according to law.
Reasons for appeal
1. The court of first instance held that the appellant? Fighting with others because of trivial matters, intentionally hurting others with a weapon, causing one person to be seriously injured and two people to be slightly injured, has constituted the crime of intentional injury? Is wrong.
The appellant didn't? Fighting with others over trifles? .
But? Other? That is, Wang xx threw a glass of wine at the appellant for no reason while drinking.
This is an extremely insulting provocation.
The appellant can still control himself in this regard.
Take active measures to avoid it, and did not retaliate against its abuse, let alone with Wang xx? Did anyone fight? .
All the people present can confirm it.
What's more, Wang xx repeatedly resorted to violence against the appellant regardless of others' dissuasion.
Besides, the appellant didn't? Any weapons? The evidence shows that.
How many times has Wang xx flourished? Any weapons? Infringe on the appellant.
Use wine glasses first, then wine bottles, then tables and chairs. These plots are very clear.
The appellant was the target of passive beating in the whole incident.
No intentional injury? Other? .
However, in Wang Jianwei's report materials, there was no mention of his vicious behavior, and he deliberately concealed the truth.
Pretending to be a poor victim.
This man's moral standards and integrity are really questionable.
As a procuratorial organ, it shoulders the sacred mission entrusted by the state to distinguish right from wrong.
At this time, instead of handling the case objectively and fairly, I filed an appeal that was extremely inconsistent with the case in the face of such clear facts. Trivia? This word blurs everything.
Deviate the truth of its affairs from the concept of right and wrong.
It really hurts.
In fact, the appellant was the biggest victim in the whole case.
Second, the court of first instance did not comprehensively and objectively examine the testimony of relevant witnesses in the process of hearing the case, and made a hasty judgment, which did not comply with the law.
Article 47 of the criminal procedure law stipulates that the testimony of a witness must be interrogated and cross-examined by the public prosecutor, the victim, the defendant and the defender in court, and the testimony of witnesses from all sides must be verified before it can be used as the basis for deciding a case? When submitting a copy of the main evidence to the court, the public prosecutor has listed the list of witnesses who should be notified to issue certificates.
However, it is understood that the relevant witnesses have not received the notice of appearance in court.
Therefore, witness evidence cannot be cross-examined in court.
However, the court did not seriously examine the facts of the case in the process of accepting and hearing the case.
During the acceptance of the case and the two court trials, the appellant, lawyers and their families repeatedly urged witnesses to testify in court to verify the authenticity of the testimony.
It is unreasonable for the court to refuse.
However, in the absence of physical evidence, there are a lot of witness testimonies in this case, and there are many statements about a fact that needs to be confirmed, which has great conflicts and involves the key facts of the appellant's guilt or innocence. The witness should appear in court but did not appear in court, and the witness was not reviewed.
Moreover, the court unilaterally passed several inconsistencies, which could not directly prove the appellant's statement. Assault and wounding? Testimony, through speculation and inference to guess what happened and the important injury process.
Contrary to Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law, in sentencing all cases, we should attach importance to evidence, investigation and research, and not trust confessions? The basic principles of.
It was not until the judgment was issued that the court rechecked the witness and confirmed the authenticity of his testimony.
Instead, the testimony was taken out of context and the appellant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
It violates the basic principles of legal fairness and justice.
What is the premise of law? Isn't the law unreasonable But in this case, it is unreasonable to make such an unreasonable judgment.
How do I act as an appellant?
Therefore, requesting a second trial can review the witness testimony in the case, which is the appellant's repeated strong demand and the appellant's most basic requirement.
I hope that the court of second instance can take facts as the basis and law as the criterion.
According to the law, the appellant was acquitted.
Third, it is a fact that Wang xx was injured in his left eye, but the actual situation at that time was that Wang xx and his brothers attacked the appellant in a completely irrational situation. Wang Brothers were young and strong, but the appellant was over half a year old and had no strength to fight back.
Witness Cheng Zhihui can confirm it.
During the trial, Wang xx was not only unclear about his eye injury, but also inconsistent.
It is not ruled out that the Wang brothers accidentally hurt each other and hurt themselves when attacking the appellant.
The description in the injury certificate can't confirm what the witness Xue X said? Tea cups from top to bottom? Wound marks.
At the same time as the original judgment? Wang xx dodged and pointed his glass at Wang Jianwei's face? Equally inconsistent, the testimony and the original judgment are conjectures and inferences.
There is no other evidence to support it.
Therefore, the fact that the appellant injured Wang xx's eyes cannot be established.
Fourth, the judgment on civil compensation, although the original judgment took into account the fault of Wang xx and Wang xx.
Realize? Three?
Seven? Judgment of responsibility.
But because the appellant thinks that he does not constitute a crime, he should be acquitted.
Therefore, the judgment of compensation attached to the civil part of the original trial was also wrong.
The factual evidence found in the original trial was wrong.
The appellant is not a criminal, but a real victim.
Wang sxx's injury was not caused by the appellant's injury.
The appellant does not constitute the crime of intentional injury.
Nor should it be liable for compensation.
Therefore, an appeal will be filed, requesting the people's court of second instance to revoke the original judgment according to law and acquit the appellant.
And rejected Wang xx and Wang xx's claim for incidental civil compensation.
Safeguard the appellant's legitimate rights and interests and the seriousness of the law.
I am here to convey
Xx intermediate people's court
(This complaint has been amended by the Appellant)
Appellant:
20XX August 8th
Plea of not guilty of intentional injury II
Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Sun Mou, male, born on 1980, Han nationality, junior high school education, farmer, domicile and address: somewhere in Haiyang city.
Now detained in Haiyang detention center.
The appellant appealed against the criminal incidental civil judgment of (20**) Hai ZiNo.. * Suspected of intentional injury.
Appeal and beg
(20**) Criminal Incidental Civil JudgmentNo. 102. * At the beginning of maritime punishment, it was found that the facts were unclear and the applicable law was wrong. I urge the court of second instance to find out the facts of the case, revoke the judgment, and acquit the appellant according to law, and not be liable for personal injury and economic loss caused by Li.
Facts and reasons
1. The appellant did not commit a crime. The evidence in this case cannot prove that the appellant committed a criminal act, and the appellant is innocent.
There are many evidences involved in this case, such as physical evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony, etc., but the evidence to prove the facts of the crime in the first instance is the victim's statement and the witness testimony of witness B and witness C in the investigation organ. The following three direct evidences are emphatically analyzed:
(a) the victim's statement
1, the victim Li fabricated injury facts and false confessions, and there were major contradictions and conflicts between the two interrogation transcripts and Sui's interrogation transcripts.
(1) The two statements about the tools that Sun rode his motorcycle are inconsistent.
The transcript of the first inquiry said: I took two sticks; The transcript of the second inquiry said: holding two shovels and two wooden sticks.
(2) There are serious contradictions and conflicts about the location, times and tools used by Sun, and the statement that Sun was beaten on the dirt road for the first time but was beaten on the dirt road for the second time is not involved in the interrogation record.
Specific excerpts from the original statement are as follows for comparative analysis:
First interview, live presentation? Sun picked up the shovel in my hand and hit it on my right arm forearm, hit it on my left waist and broke the shovel handle.
Sun hit me on the left and right face.
Statement of the second interrogation record at the scene? Sun took a broken shovel handle (the shovel that Wang interrupted when he hit Li) and hit me in the left rib several times; I was holding a shovel in my hand. After Sun's broken shovel handle was taken away by Wang's daughter, Sun picked up my shovel and hit me. Sun hit me on the right side several times with a shovel. I was afraid that Sun would hit me on the head, so I blocked it with my right arm. Sun always breaks my shovel handle? After Sun interrupted the shovel handle, he threw the remaining shovel handle to the East.
Sun began to slap me in the face, with one hand slapping me several times and the other hand slapping me several times.
In the transcript of the first inquiry, Sun did not type his statement on the dirt road.
The statement about dirt road in the second interrogation record? Sun and Wang's daughter pressed Sui Bei to attack Sui. When Sun saw the king fall, he took a broken shovel handle with a shovel head on it and hit me on the right arm.
(3) In Wang's statement about striking, is the position of striking contradictory? The first statement said that Wang hit his left waist with a shovel, and the second statement said that Wang hit his spine with a shovel; The first statement does not involve the ownership of the shovel, and the second statement emphasizes that Wang hit him in the field with the shovel brought by Sun. If so, where is Wang's own shovel? This statement does not conform to the routine of life.
The statement at the scene in the transcript of the first interview? When the king saw Sun coming, he hit me on the left side with a shovel. At this time, the shovel in Wang's hand was broken.
The statement in the second interrogation record? When Wang saw Sun and Wang's daughter coming, Wang picked up the shovel brought by Sun and hit my spine. The handle of the shovel was directly broken.
What about the dirt road in the transcript of the first inquiry? Wang hit my left arm with a spade.
The statement about dirt road in the second interrogation record? I don't know where Wang got a complete shovel. I was sitting in the north of my village, facing south. Wang picked up a shovel and hit me on the left. I blocked Wang from hitting me on the head with my left arm. Wang hit me several times.
(4) There was a serious conflict about the beating of Wang's daughter: the first statement said? Pick it up? The second statement said? Take it? Broken shovel handle; The first statement claimed that the king's daughter took the handle of the shovel that Wang hit her, and the second statement claimed that the king's daughter took the handle of the shovel that Sun hit her with a shovel.
The statement about the scene in the transcript of the first interview? When Sun hit me, Wang's daughter picked up the shovel that Wang interrupted when he hit me, and hit me on the back and back twice.
The statement in the second interrogation record? Wang's daughter hit me on the head and shoulder with a broken shovel in Sun's hand.
(5) The statement that Li fled the scene is seriously contradictory: The first statement said? Run? Sun rode a motorcycle to catch up; The second statement said? Going? Sun didn't chase.
2. There are contradictions and conflicts between Li's two interrogation transcripts and Sui's interrogation transcripts; Zou said he didn't see Sun invade Li.
(1) About the time when Sui arrived at the scene.
According to Li's first statement, Sui first arrived at the scene when he fled the scene, and was beaten and sat in the north of the villagers.
According to Li's second statement, Sui arrived at the scene first when he was beaten in the field.
Sui's statement: When I walked to the north of my home, I saw my wife lying in the north of my home, with someone beside me.
(2) A statement about whether Li was beaten on a dirt road.
When Li first said he was on a dirt road. Wang hit my left arm with a shovel? There is no allegation that Sun was beaten on a dirt road this time.
When Li made his second statement, Wang picked up a shovel and hit me on the left side of my body. I blocked my head with my left arm for fear that the king would hit me. The king hit me several times.
? Sun also took a broken shovel handle with a shovel head on it and hit me in the right arm? .
Zou said? I didn't see it when I hit my wife Li. Did Sun hit me after I went? .
(3) The time when Sui was beaten
According to Li's first and second statements, Wang's daughter and Sui fell to the ground on a dirt road.
According to Sui, on the dirt road, only Sun pressed it a few times, and Wang's daughter didn't participate.
(4) Sui went home and took the mobile phone to make time.
According to Li's two statements, Sui was beaten by Sun on the dirt road after calling the police.
According to Sui's statement, he was beaten by Sun on a dirt road before reporting to the police.
There are contradictions and conflicts between the victim's statement and the testimony of witness A. ..
Witness a said. Then Sun picked up Li's shovel and slammed it on Li's right arm, interrupting Li's shovel handle all the time? And Li' s second inquiry record reads? Sun also took a broken shovel handle with a shovel head on it and hit me in the right arm? Contradictions
To sum up, the victim is a witness in this case. If the appellant did commit the crime of intentional injury, the victim's two statements about the criminal process should be stable and consistent. However, his interrogation record shows great contradictions and conflicts, disorder and irrationality! Accordingly, the victim's statement is true, and it is impossible to confirm which statement is true. And its statement conflicts with that of witnesses Sui and A! Obviously, the victim fabricated criminal facts and made false statements, which cannot be used as evidence in this case.
(2) Witness testimony of witness B..
1. For the fact that the witness and the victim are related, the defender applied to the court of first instance and asked the court to return the case to the public prosecution for supplementary investigation and verification, but the court of first instance refused to allow it.
Helpless, the appellant's relatives went to the village Committee to issue a certificate to prove that witness B and the victim were brothers and sisters. The above certificate was submitted to the court of first instance, and the court of first instance did not respond whether there was a kinship between them.
Therefore, the appellant submitted the above-mentioned village committee certificate to the court of second instance, which was used for the lie that witness B claimed that witness B had no kinship with the victim, so as to expose the fact that witness B had a significant interest relationship with the victim.
Here, in order to save pen and ink, I won't refute the expression or title of kinship in witness B's identification transcript and testimony.
2.b has close contact with the victim. He knows Wang and has done farm work for Wang before. Therefore, it is reasonable for him to identify Wang.
This witness said that when he heard several noises in the north, he wanted to see what happened. If the testimony is true, then the witness should and must be located on the dirt road on the south side of the incident, but the fact is that the dirt road has not been opened to traffic!
On this basis, which road did the witness drive the tractor at that time? The dirt road on the south side of the incident site is a broken road. If the witness drives a tractor on this road, where does the witness turn the tractor around?
The appellant has evidence to prove that no tractor or peanut-growing tractor passed the dirt road on the south side of the case before the police arrived at the scene.
4. The dirt road is nearly 20 meters away from the first scene of the incident. The witness described in detail how an old man and a young man beat Sui's wife (victim Li) with a spade at the time of the crime. Why can't they identify the appellant?
The witness stated for the first time that the young man who hit Li with a spade was naked. Why did the second statement say that the young man was wearing a gray shirt that day? It happened in April of the Gregorian calendar, when the weather was still very cold. At 8 o'clock in the morning, why did the young man go topless?
6. The witness's statement about the fighting process has subjective inference. I remember it should be Sui's wife's right arm? 、? No, how can one person hit three people? .
7. If the witness was present at the time of the crime, why did he see an old man and a young man beating Li with their arms instead of going forward to stop the fight and calling the police? Why? As soon as I saw that this was going to kill the old lady, I continued to look for a job because the scene was unbearable? Seeing that the closest relative was beaten at the scene, why didn't you stop fighting and call the police?
8. If the witness was present at the time of the crime, even if he didn't help the victim, why didn't he inform Sui, who was also doing farm work on the south side of the dirt road?
In addition, the investigation file of this case contains witness testimony of planting peanut B in a village on the day of the crime. Although the anonymous testimony was not used as one of the evidences in the judgment document of the first instance, the anonymous witness said that he had called witness B to plant peanuts on the day of the crime and had been waiting for witness B to drive a tractor to plant peanuts for him. Without waiting for witness B, an anonymous witness called Sui about planting peanuts.
Accordingly, it is very important to verify the telephone records of anonymous witness and witness B on the day of the crime, as well as the telephone records of anonymous witness and Sui.
In this regard, the defender filed an application in the first instance, but the court of first instance refused to comment! It can be inferred that witness B provided labor services at the invitation of an anonymous witness to earn labor fees, so he was so stupid that he didn't call the other party to ask where the labor services were when there were no labor inviters anywhere, so that he even drove a tractor to look for a job everywhere after he couldn't find them! The anonymous witness once called the witness B Peanut, but he just waited and didn't call to ask where B was as a labor service provider, so that he sat in the busy farming season! Since the anonymous witness can talk to Sui on the phone, why not ask him, witness B, a relative of Li, if he can come and plant peanuts for him?
The testimony of anonymous witness is highly related to the testimony of witness B, and whether it is true or not is the touchstone of witness B's testimony. Why didn't the court of first instance specify it in the judgment document and choose it at will? Please ask the court of second instance to verify.
From the above, it can be seen that witness B not only has a great interest in the victim, but also his testimony does not conform to common sense of life, which is objective and true. It is a false certificate that is maliciously colluded with the victim and falsely fabricated, and should not be used as evidence.
(3) the testimony of witness C.
This testimony has the following problems and contradictions, which are not objective and true and should not be accepted:
1. The witness speculated about the tools brought by the appellant in speculative language, namely? Sun's motorcycle took a shovel and some sticks. .
2. The witness described in detail that the appellant hit Li twice at the time of the crime, but he didn't see Sui at the scene and didn't pay attention to when Sui arrived at the scene.
This contradicts Sui's statement that the appellant hit him on the dirt road and the witness didn't hear Sui shouting at Sun on the dirt road.
The witness said that she didn't see Wang's daughter beat Li, which contradicted Li's statement.
4. Eyewitness testimony? Then Sun picked up Li's shovel and slammed it on Li's right arm, interrupting Li's shovel handle all the time? And Li' s second inquiry record reads? Sun also took a broken shovel handle with a shovel head on it and hit me in the right arm? Contradictions
(4) In this case, the court of first instance found that the direct evidence of the appellant's intentional injury crime was the victim's statement, the testimony of witness B and witness C, but the court of first instance refused to comply with the legal request of the defender to ask all the witnesses involved to appear in court for cross-examination, and deliberately violated the provisions of Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the grounds of protecting the safety of anonymous witnesses, namely? Witness testimony must be cross-examined and verified by the public prosecutor, the victim, the defendant and the defender in court before it can be used as the basis for finalizing the case.
If the court finds that a witness intentionally perjures or conceals criminal evidence, it shall deal with it according to law.
? As a result, the facts of the case were unclear, and the appellant was falsely accused and detained in person.
Here, the appellant puts forward the following requirements, and implores the court of second instance to approve them:
1. On the premise of taking relevant witness protection measures, all witnesses involved in the case will appear in court for cross-examination!
2. Require the public prosecution agency to collect and submit to the court all the phone records between witness B, peanut witness and Sui Mou on the day of the incident involved in this case and up to now.
To sum up, the victim's statement, witness B's testimony and witness C's testimony accepted by the court of first instance in this case do not conform to the objective facts, but are the products of malicious collusion, fabrication, planting and framing, and should be excluded according to law.
Other indirect evidence listed in the judgment document of the first instance of this case will not be analyzed and refuted one by one, and an effective evidence chain cannot be formed.
The appellant did not commit the crime of intentional injury, and the evidence in this case cannot prove that the appellant committed the crime.
True blue will never stain. Today, with the progress of the rule of law in the country, I believe that the people's court can find out the facts of this case and acquit the appellant!
Two, the appellant did not commit a criminal act, and shall not be liable for the economic losses caused by the personal injury of the victim.
To sum up, the defendant's criminal behavior is minor, and we urge the people's court to give the defendant a chance to turn over a new leaf, convict him, but sentence him to probation.
I am here to convey
Yantai Intermediate People's Court