Kaltės turinio nustatymo problemos bylose dėl nusikaltimų žmogaus gyvybei ir sveikatai.

The author of the article explores the problem of the sentencing of the persons who committed crimes against a person’s health and life. The author investigates two groups of crimes and discusses the courts’ practice in such cases. The first category of crimes person. The author provides several decisions of the courts in similar cases when a person uses a knife and several times hits the body of the victim, what results in a grave bodily injury. In all cases discussed the perpetrator is sentenced for grave bodily injuries but not for an attempt to murder the victim. The author presents an in-depth analysis of the problem and arrives at a conclusion that courts do not pay enough attention to the content of the intention of the perpetrator. According to the Lithuanian criminal law theory, an intention can be definite or indefinite. When an intention is definite, the perpetrator understands that his behaviour is dangerous to the life of a person, predicts the murder of the victim and wishes such a consequence of his actions. When an intention is indefinite, the perpetrator understands that his behaviour is dangerous to the health or the life of the victim, but wishes any possible consequences. When an intention is indefinite, a person should be sentenced according to the arising consequences of the crime. So, when the victim does not die from the injuries, the perpetrator is sentenced for the consequences of his act. However, the author thinks that in the cases when a knife is used to hit the body in such a way that the vital functions are impaired, the perpetrator understands that he endangers not only the health but also the life of the victim. In this context the intention is not indefinite (in-between health and life). In those cases a person should not be sentenced according to the consequences. The perpetrator should be sentenced for the attempt to commit murder (according to the content of his intention). He should be sentenced according to the gravest consequences that he predicted. The second group of the courts decisions that are investigated in the article is concerned with the cases when a perpetrator hits the head of the victim by the hand and the victim dies. The author provides several examples of the courts’ decisions in such cases. There are two or even three types of decisions. In some cases the perpetrator is sentenced for the murder, in other cases the perpetrator is sentenced for the intentional grave bodily injury and negligent homicide. However, in several cases the perpetrator is sentenced just for negligent homicide. The author investigates the content of the intention in such cases and raises the question whether a person understands that a shot to the chest of another person is endangering the persons’ life, and whether he predicts that his act may result in the death of the victim. It is difficult to give a uniform answer to the question. However, the author agrees with the decisions in several cases when the perpetrator was sentenced for the intentional grave bodily injury and negligent homicide according to the content of his guilt but nor for intentional murder, because usually a person does not understand that his shooting is dangerous for the life of the victim and does not predict such consequences . Everything looks especially odd, when we compare the decisions in the first group of the cases with the decisions in the second group of the cases. The author makes several conclusions regarding the evaluation of such cases with reference to the Penal Code of Lithuania.Straipsnyje analizuojama teismų praktika kvalifikuojant veikas, padarytas prieš kitą žmogų, jo sveiktą ir gyvybę. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama dviejų atvejų baudžiamajam teisiniam vertinimui: 1) kai prieš kitą žmogų panaudojamas peilis ar kitoks panašus įrankis, pritaikytas kūnui žaloti, 2) kai suduodamas vienas ar keli smūgiai ranka į galvos sritį. Autorius pateikia pavyzdžių iš teismų praktikos, iš kurių matyti, kad nukentėjusiajam likus gyvam dėl smūgių peiliu į gyvybiškai svarbias kūno dalis kaltininko padaryta veika dažnai kvalifikuojama pagal kilusius padarinius, t. y. kaip sveikatos sutrikdymas. Kita vertus, straipsnyje pateikiama teismų praktikos pavyzdžių, kai, sudavus vieną smūgį ranka į galvos sritį ir dėl to nukentėjusiajam mirus, padaryta veika kvalifikuojama kaip nužudymas, o kvalifikavus kaip tyčinio sveikatos sutrikdymo ir gyvybės atėmimo dėl neatsargumo idealiąją sutaptį, prokurorai paduoda apeliacinius skundus ir Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas perkvalifikuoja tokias veikas pagal Baudžiamojo kodekso 129 straipsnį. Autorius analizuoja tokią teismų praktiką ir vertina ją kritiškai, nes teismai neatsižvelgia į kaltininko kaltės turinį, daromos veikos pavojingumo suvokimo ir padarinių numatymo apsekus. Taip pat teikiami pasiūlymai dėl tokių veikų kvalifikavimo