SCC confirms life imprisonment of Dilyan Betev, who threw his child from a viaduct

–

–

Dilyan Betev Photo: Archive

–

The Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence of “life imprisonment” of Dilyan Betev, who crashed from a bridge near Gabrovo and killed his underage son in 2019.

By Decision № 12 / 22.02.2021 on criminal case № 1022/2020 a three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) upheld the decision on v.n.o.h.d. № 238/2020 of the Court of Appeal – Veliko Tarnovo. The decision is not subject to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Cassation received a notification from a prosecutor about the actions taken to implement the sentence imposed by the court.

The case was initiated on the appeal of the defendant Dilyan Betev against the appellate decision, which confirmed the verdict of the District Court – Gabrovo. With it the defendant was found guilty of committing a crime, namely that on 03.07.2019 in the town of Gabrovo, under the conditions of a dangerous recidivism, he deliberately killed his minor son, who was in a helpless state, and the act was done deliberately. He was sentenced to “life imprisonment”. He was sentenced to pay the civil plaintiff in the case compensation in the amount of BGN 200,000 for the non-pecuniary damages caused.

The cassation appeal alleges a clear injustice of the sentence imposed and requests that it be reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation did not share the allegations set forth in the appeal for omissions in the individualization of the criminal responsibility of the defendant. The appellate court complied with the requirements for full and comprehensive motivation of the conclusions that led to the imposition of the sentence of “life imprisonment”. The arguments that the crime committed by the defendant is extremely serious are substantiated with extreme precision.

The existence of numerous aggravating circumstances was emphasized – five in number, the situation in which the murder took place was assessed – the defendant threw his minor child through a high viaduct at night, doing so deliberately, seeking justification in his life’s misfortunes. conflict with the mother.

According to the supreme judges, the psychological characteristics of the defendant, defining him as a person with emotionally unstable traits, prone to cynicism, arrogance and audacity, inability to take responsibility for others, with an assessment inconsistent with his ego, lack of criticism of the shortcomings. , neglect of negative actions.

His judicial history has been thoroughly analyzed, the burden of which has undoubtedly led to the qualification of the act as committed under the conditions of “dangerous recidivism”, but has served to draw conclusions about the lack of any corrective and rehabilitative effect (the crime was committed close 2 years after the defendant has served an effective sentence of “imprisonment” for serious intentional acts).

Among the arguments of the appellate court to impose this punishment were those related to the physical, psychological and sexual harassment that the defendant Betev inflicted on the mother of his child.

The controlled instance has set out extensive reasons for the fact that the defendant does not suffer from mental disorders that reflect on his sanity. The disharmoniously structured personality with emotionally unstable traits in Betev found by the experts is the result of a peculiarity of the character, formed under the influence of external factors, and not a mental illness. The lack of desire to change his negative character traits and the desire to present himself as a victim of circumstances and misunderstanding on the part of relatives, in order to explain and justify even the caused death of his son, are correctly recognized by the appellate court not as a disease. to reduce the public danger of the defendant, and as features of the personality, revealing increased public danger.
“There are no preconditions for leniency, which the defendant seeks with his request to impose a sentence of 20 years of” imprisonment “, which in this particular situation would be unjustified,” the supreme judges said.

– .