Neighborly bonds are broken, community spirit shattered, all because of a word of criticism.
They were not only neighbors but also relatives, yet simply because Mr. Tr. criticized Pháp's singing at a wedding, he threw a bowl straight at Mr. Tr.'s face. This outburst of anger not only landed Pháp in legal trouble but also further distanced the two neighbors from each other…
Some end up in jail, others suffer injuries because of a bowl.
The day of the appeal trial of Vu Van Phap (51 years old), residing in Trung Thanh commune (formerly), now Quan Thanh commune, Nghe An province, on the charge of "Intentional infliction of injuryA large crowd of people attended the wedding. They were relatives, friends, and neighbors of both the defendant and the victim. Everyone expressed regret, never imagining that the joyous wedding celebration would end so tragically.
In the courtroom, the defendant sat silently, head bowed, as if trying to avoid the gaze of his relatives and neighbors below. One 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, yet now they had to face each other in court.
The incident began on the wedding day of a neighboring family. Around 9:15 PM on September 21, 2024, Pháp went to his neighbor's house to celebrate the wedding. There, Pháp went on stage to entertain the hosts with a song. As he was going down to the table to prepare his late-night porridge, Mr. Vũ Văn Tr. approached him and said, "You don't sing well, your father, your mother."
Pháp retorted, "My father is dead, stop cursing," and threatened to punch him in the face. Pháp also criticized Mr. Tr. for repeatedly insulting him, saying this time he would "not hold back." As soon as he finished speaking, Pháp grabbed a bowl from the tray and threw it, hitting Mr. Tr. in the face.
As a result, Mr. Tr. sustained injuries to his forehead, right eyebrow, nose, and right eye. On October 16, 2024, the victim filed a request for assessment of the percentage of injury and also requested the prosecution of Vu Van Phap for "intentionally causing injury". The investigating agency determined that the victim suffered 49% injury.
A lesson in patience
Subsequently, the People's Court of Yen Thanh District (formerly) held a first-instance trial, sentencing Vu Van Phap to 5 years in prison for "Intentional infliction of injury," and ordering the defendant to compensate the victim with over 182 million VND.
Following the initial trial, the defendant appealed for a reduced sentence. Meanwhile, the victim also appealed, requesting an increased prison sentence for the defendant, Pháp, and an increase in civil compensation.
At the appeal hearing, Vu Van Phap recounted the reasons behind his criminal act. According to the defendant, that evening he went to his neighbor's house to celebrate with the family and had no ill intentions towards the victim. However, as soon as he came down from the stage, he had to listen to Mr. Tr.'s criticisms of his singing. Furthermore, the victim's vulgar language and offensive remarks about his relatives angered the defendant. "My father died from Agent Orange poisoning, and yet the victim kept bringing it up and insulting him in public, which upset me," Phap testified in court.
Vu Van Phap further stated that he had just arrived that evening and hadn't had time to eat anything, but the victim had accused him of being greedy. Being insulted and subjected to such unpleasant remarks while neighbors were enjoying themselves made him feel humiliated. The defendant admitted that there had been no prior conflict between them.
Meanwhile, the victim argued that the defendant's actions were thuggish, throwing a bowl at a vulnerable area and causing 49% health damage. The defendant's actions caused the victim emotional distress and health problems, therefore requesting an increase in civil compensation to over 400 million VND.
The judging panel analyzed that both the defendant and the victim were elderly and should have thought things through carefully. Furthermore, they were neighbors, and if they had maintained harmony, there would have been no reason for this conflict. There were many ways to resolve the dispute, instead of getting angry and resorting to violence, resulting in injuries, imprisonment, and the destruction of neighborly relations.
The appeal hearing dragged on as both sides presented their reasons for their appeals. The defendant stated that he did not intentionally harm the victim. After the incident, he expressed deep remorse for his mistake. Following the appeal hearing, he arranged for his family to fully compensate the victim. He cited his difficult circumstances and young children as reasons for requesting leniency. During the hearing, the defendant turned to the victim, his eyes filled with remorse, and mumbled an apology.
The appellate court noted that during the investigation and at the trial, the defendant showed remorse for his criminal actions. After the first-instance trial, the defendant influenced his family to fully compensate the victim. The defendant stated that he is suffering from cancer and that his father was awarded the Resistance War Medal by the State, which are mitigating circumstances that should be considered.
Therefore, the court partially accepted the defendant's appeal, sentencing Vu Van Phap to 2 years and 6 months in prison. Regarding the civil aspect, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the victim 350 million VND (after deducting the amount already paid).
Just because of praise or criticism, or momentary anger, the men who were the breadwinners of the family—some injured, some imprisoned—left the burden on their wives. This case serves as a valuable lesson for everyone on how to behave, as the old saying goes, "a moment of patience saves nine troubles."
