A Perm resident was involved in a violent incident when he attacked two men with a tire iron after they refused watermelon he offered. The event is being reviewed by the Perm Regional Court. The case underscores how a summer dispute can escalate quickly into serious violence. The investigation turned up details that the attacker, under the influence of alcohol, confronted a group of men seated on a street bench and pressed his fruit offer. When the recipients declined to sample the watermelon, the situation escalated. The assailant returned home to retrieve scrap metal and then returned to the scene to strike the two men. The evidence showed that he deliberately struck both victims at different parts of their bodies. As a result, one man sustained a broken leg, while the other suffered a ruptured spleen, highlighting the severity of the harm caused by the defendant’s actions.
During the court proceedings, the watermelon seller partially admitted to the wrongdoing. He claimed that the man without a spleen was struck in the abdomen and that he did not intend to hit the second person in the leg. He asserted that the leg injury occurred accidentally when the tire iron hit the bench. The court, however, regarded the defendant’s account of unintentional injuries as unreliable and suggested that the statements reflected an attempt to lessen his culpability in the eyes of the court. This assessment played a crucial role in the evaluation of intent and responsibility in the case, affecting how the evidence was weighed by the judges.
The first instance court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to a five-year term in a corrective colony. The case was later reviewed by a district court in January, where the previously announced punishment was deemed legal and justified in light of the facts presented and the jury-like considerations for culpability. The proceedings illustrate how appellate review can uphold, or modify, sentences based on new interpretations of intent, the severity of injuries, and the overall impact on the victims. This legal path demonstrates the balance courts seek between punishment and accountability in violent acts that arise from seemingly trivial provocations and cultural expectations around food and social interaction.
In a separate, past matter in Ufa, a different incident involved a passenger wearing a seat belt being strangled, which shows a pattern of violent behavior in the broader region and informs ongoing considerations of safety and the legal consequences for violations. This context helps explain why courts carefully scrutinize testimony, the reliability of statements, and the range of factors that contribute to sentencing decisions in cases involving physical harm and threats to personal security.