this Court of Alicante added penalties. seven years and six months in prison Man accused of spraying his partner and son A can of diesel at Elda according to the sentence reached by this newspaper during a debate. The verdict fell short of the 16-year prison sentence demanded by the prosecution from the defendants. Don’t see this as attempted murder.because the court saw no evidence that the defendant tried to burn his victims with a lighter. None of the two people who were attacked wanted to testify against the accused during the trial, and they avoided answering questions about the accusations, so the court had to rely on what both said in their days before the investigating court. But even in that statement, they did not say that the accused had lit the lighter, When he said he would kill them and set them on fire, he limited himself to display.
The decision has not been finalized and there is an appeal against it at the Court of Cassation. High Court of Justice of the Commonwealth of Valencia. The judges sentenced the defendant to two years in prison for spraying gasoline on his victims. serious threat crime. One more year is added to this sentence for the crime of humiliation. domestic abuse for punching his partner and also four years and six months in prison. for injuries with a dangerous tool after he whipped his victims and even stabbed his son. A much higher penalty than for the fuel incident.
Events took place in the family home in Elda on March 6 this year. heated argument with your romantic partner”. The man was attacking the woman, before that his 18-year-old son tried to run away from him, while the accused began to attack both of them. The judges proved that he immediately left the house and returned with a bottle of gas, spraying both of them and telling them as he pulled out a lighter. “I will set you on fire”, “I will kill you”or “you won’t come at night”. However, they state that For “unknown reasons” he finally failed to light the lighter. He then grabbed a whip to attack his partner, but the son again came to his defense. In the judgment, the accused dealt several blows to his back and armswhile telling him, “I’m going to skin you, you’re a boxer.” Then he took out a razor, lifted it and plunged it into it. posterior region of the right shoulder.
The accused was under arrest for these events and denied everything during the trial. He just admitted that he had an argument with his partner because his son hadn’t come home from the party for two days. “I was not respected here, no one was following my rules, so I told him I was leaving the house.. I was going to move to Valencia to start a new life with another woman.”, he came to provide. For the accused, it was an argument and he assured: Gasoline was spilled on the survivors during the struggle. He also attributed his son’s injuries to a fight he had before he came home.
version change
During the hearing, neither the woman nor her son wanted to testify against them, and when the court rejected this claim, they both told the same as what the defendant had just told, and they simply said no when pressured during the interrogation, they remembered. But both had given extensive testimony in court as soon as the events took place, and it was this appearance on which the court based the sentence. The sentence denies the exculpatory testimony that both gave during the trial. “Witness does not provide a minimally convincing explanation of the radical version change”, It says I’m unsuccessful.
The woman in that statement said that the gasoline spill was accidental, while the son said that the accused had sprayed them with fuel and would set them on fire and killed them. However, that statement he just meant to show the lighter but it didn’t work. “We can’t prove that the defendant managed to light the lighter in his hand, we just can’t understand that he showed it to both of them after he sprayed them both with diesel and said he’d set them on fire. with the intention of scaring them”, defends the sentence. The decision recalls the testimony of police officers who attended the oral hearing and who made the strong judgment that the fuel spillage on the house may have been accidental.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office claimed 16 years in prison for two crimes, eight years each for attempted murder. However, at the end of the trial, the Public Ministry representative brought up this alternative accusation in light of the exculpatory statements defended by the victims.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.