Broken neighborhood and village relationships just because of criticism
Not only were they neighbors but also cousins, but just because he was criticized for “singing badly” at the wedding, Phap threw a bowl straight at Mr. Tr’s face. That anger not only got Phap in trouble with the law but also pushed the neighborly relationship between the two further and further apart…
Some people are in trouble with the law, others are disabled because of a bowl.
The day of the appeal trial of Vu Van Phap (51 years old), residing in Trung Thanh commune (old), now Quan Thanh commune, Nghe An, for the crime of "Intentional injury”, there were many people attending. They were relatives, friends, neighbors of the defendant and the victim. Everyone expressed regret, not expecting the happy wedding party to have such a sad ending.
In the courtroom, the defendant sat quietly with his head bowed as if to avoid the eyes of his relatives and neighbors below. A row away, the victim - Mr. Vu Van Tr. (born in 1966), had to wear glasses after being hit in the face by a bowl thrown by the French. They were both relatives and neighbors, but now they had to meet in the middle of the court.
The incident began on the wedding day of a neighbor's family. At around 9:15 p.m. on September 21, 2024, Phap went to his neighbor's house to celebrate the wedding. There, Phap went on stage to join the host in singing a song. When he had just gone down to the table below to prepare to eat porridge at night, Mr. Vu Van Tr. approached and said: "You don't sing well, your father, your mother."
Phap immediately responded: "My father is dead, stop cursing" and threatened to punch him in the face. Phap also blamed Mr. Tr. for cursing him many times and this time he would "not hold back anymore". As soon as he finished speaking, Phap picked up the bowl on the tray and threw it at Mr. Tr.'s face.
As a result, Mr. Tr. suffered injuries to his forehead, right eyebrow, bridge of the nose, and right eye. On October 16, 2024, the victim filed a request for an assessment of the disability rate and at the same time, requested to prosecute Vu Van Phap for "Intentional Infliction of Injury". The investigation agency determined that the victim suffered 49% injury.
Lesson on patience
Afterwards, the People's Court of Yen Thanh District (old) opened a first-instance trial, sentencing Vu Van Phap to 5 years in prison for "Intentionally causing injury", and at the same time, requiring the defendant to compensate the victim more than 182 million VND.
After the first instance trial, the defendant appealed for a reduced sentence. Meanwhile, the victim also appealed to increase the prison sentence for the French defendant and increase the civil compensation.
At the appeal hearing, Vu Van Phap reported the reasons for his crime. According to the defendant, that night, he went to his neighbor's house to have fun with the homeowner and had no intention of harming the victim. However, when the defendant came down from the stage, he had to listen to Mr. Tr.'s criticism of his bad singing. Furthermore, the victim's swearing and harsh words about his relatives made the defendant angry. "My father died from Agent Orange, but the victim kept cursing him in public, which made the defendant angry," Phap testified in court.
Vu Van Phap also stated that the defendant had just arrived that evening and had not had time to eat anything, but the victim said that he was greedy. Being insulted and having harsh words said to him while the neighbors were having a good time made the defendant feel humiliated. The defendant admitted that the two had not had any conflicts with each other before.
Meanwhile, the victim said that the defendant's behavior was hooliganism when he threw a bowl into a dangerous area, causing 49% health damage. The defendant's behavior caused the victim to suffer mental damage and affect his health, so he requested to increase the civil compensation to more than 400 million VND.
The jury analyzed that the defendant and the victim were both old and should have thought things through. Moreover, the two sides were neighbors, so if peace was the priority, there would be no reason for anything to happen. There are many ways to resolve conflicts, instead of getting angry and using violence, causing injuries, sending others to prison, and destroying the harmony of the village and neighborhood.
The appeal hearing dragged on as both sides gave reasons to present their appeals. The defendant stated that he did not intend to harm the victim. After the incident, the defendant was very remorseful for his mistake. After the appeal hearing, the defendant had his family pay full compensation to the victim. The defendant presented his difficult circumstances and young children to ask the court to consider reducing his sentence. Also at the hearing, the defendant turned to the victim, his eyes filled with remorse, and mumbled an apology.
The appellate court stated that during the investigation and at the trial, the defendant showed remorse for his crime. After the first instance trial, the defendant had urged his family to compensate the victim for all the money. The defendant stated that he was suffering from cancer and that his father had been awarded the Resistance Medal by the State, which were mitigating circumstances.
Therefore, the court partially accepted the defendant's appeal and sentenced Vu Van Phap to 2 years and 6 months in prison. Regarding the civil part, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the victim 350 million VND (deducted from the amount already compensated).
Just because of praise, criticism, and temporary anger, the men who are the pillars of the family, the disabled, and those who are in prison leave the burden to their wives. The case is a valuable lesson for everyone in how to behave, as the old saying goes, “One forbearance is worth nine kindnesses.”
