The Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Garrison Court has handed down an eight-year sentence in a general regime correctional colony to a soldier who left his post without permission. The decision was disclosed by the press service of the authorities.
The case was brought under Part 5 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which covers unauthorized abandonment of a unit or place of service. The court heard that on February 26, 2023, the serviceman voluntarily left the location of his military unit in the Donetsk People’s Republic and traveled to his home on Sakhalin. He did not return to the unit until February 6, 2024, effectively remaining away for more than a year and a half.
The ruling has not yet entered into force and remains subject to appeal, a standard step in the Russian judicial process that provides the defendant with an opportunity to challenge the verdict or the sentence.
Media coverage from socialbites.ca noted that this case marks a rare instance in Russia where a soldier was charged with voluntary surrender. Information from the Sakhalin First Eastern District Military Court identifies the defendant as DV Puntusov, who faced accusations of voluntary surrender and desertion during a mobilization period. The court’s findings emphasize the seriousness with which military authorities treat breaches of duty that jeopardize unit cohesion and public safety.
Historically, Russian jurisprudence has treated desertion and voluntary surrender as offenses that undermine military discipline. The Supreme Court has previously stated that a voluntary surrender can constitute a crime if resistance to an order or duty remains possible. Jurisprudence in related cases underscores that military personnel are expected to maintain a clear readiness to fulfill their duties, and departures without authorization are met with stringent penalties intended to deter similar violations.
Observers note that the case has attracted attention not only within military circles but also among legal commentators who analyze how mobilization periods affect service obligations. In the Russian legal framework, the line between lawful absence and unauthorized desertion can hinge on specific circumstances surrounding deployment, the timing of the departure, and the serviceman’s intended destination. The court’s decision reflects an assessment of these factors, including the duration of the absence and the potential impact on operations and safety at the unit’s location.
For readers in regions with military personnel or families connected to service members, the case serves as a reminder of the penalties associated with leaving a post without permission. It also illustrates the mechanisms through which the military justice system addresses breaches of duty, the role of the legislature in defining offenses, and how sentences are calibrated to reflect both the severity of the act and the context in which it occurred.
As the legal process progresses, additional details may emerge through official statements and further court actions. The current record indicates a serious breach of duty, treated as a major offense under the established codes, with consequences that extend beyond the individual to the broader military community and public trust in service commitments.