News

The panel of judges at the Panevėžys Regional Court rejected the appeal filed by V. V., who had inflicted minor injuries on his spouse, and upheld the sentence handed down by the Panevėžys Chamber of the Panevėžys District Court on June 17, 2025. The Court confirmed that the final sentence imposed on V. V. – 8 months of imprisonment for minor impairment of his wife's health – was correctly assigned, and the convict V. V. was rightly recognised as a recidivist.

V. V. committed the crime on January 2, 2025, while intoxicated with alcohol, during a family conflict. V. V. intentionally punched his wife, E. V., in the face. The woman suffered an eye injury and a fracture of the lower wall of her left eye socket. This action caused physical pain and minor health impairment.

The first-instance court sentenced V. V. to 1 year of imprisonment for this criminal act, which was then reduced by one-third in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code, resulting in a final sentence of 8 months of imprisonment. Furthermore, the civil claims were granted, and V. V. was ordered to pay €145.71 to the State Patient Fund for E. V.'s treatment as compensation for pecuniary damage.

The convicted V. V. filed an appeal requesting the annulment of the custodial sentence and the imposition of a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the violent actions were partly provoked and that he had reconciled with the victim.

The Regional Court concluded that the first-instance court had correctly chosen the sentence. The panel of judges emphasised that V. V. committed a deliberate, moderately serious, violent crime against a family member, and the aggravating circumstances of his liability were recognised as committing the crime while intoxicated with alcohol and being a recidivist. Although the convict admitted to the criminal act and sincerely regretted it, these mitigating circumstances do not change the court's conclusion.

The Court dismissed the convict's arguments regarding possible provocation. "The mere fact that E. V. used profanity towards V. V., or <...> gently pushed him from the windowsill onto the bed to prevent further damage, is not evaluated as provocation and did not provide grounds for V. V. to use violence against her," the panel of judges noted.

Having assessed all the circumstances of the case, especially the convict's tendency to abuse alcohol and his criminal record for previous violent crimes (including a minor impairment of E. V.'s health), the court decided that imposing a milder sentence or suspending its execution would not meet the requirements of the principles of justice. The panel of judges concluded that the goals of the punishment can only be achieved through its actual execution.

When citing or otherwise distributing this information, please indicate the source of the information.

Contact for the media: