Case Law: Landmark Prc Domestic Violence Convictions
I. Legal Context of Domestic Violence Crimes in China
Domestic violence in China is not a single stand-alone criminal charge. Instead, it is punished through multiple criminal law provisions, most commonly:
Relevant Criminal Law Articles
Article 234 — Intentional Injury (故意伤害罪)
Used when physical abuse causes bodily harm.
Article 232 — Intentional Homicide (故意杀人罪)
Applied in extreme DV cases resulting in death.
Article 260 — Maltreatment / Abuse of Family Members (虐待罪)
Used for long-term abuse inside families; enhanced when the victim is a minor or elderly.
Article 260(2) — Abuse leading to death or serious injury (虐待致死、致重伤)
Higher penalties where long-term abuse causes severe outcome.
Domestic Violence Protection Order System (《反家庭暴力法》, 2016)
Violating protection orders can lead to criminal consequences (often obstruction of social governance or assault).
Since 2016, courts increasingly recognize psychological abuse, repeated coercion, and patterns of long-term violence when determining sentencing.
II. Landmark PRC Domestic Violence Criminal Cases (Detailed)
Below are seven major and representative cases that shaped domestic-violence criminal enforcement in China.
Case 1 — Beijing: “First Criminal Conviction After Violating Protection Order” (2017)
Facts
The victim obtained one of China’s earliest personal safety protection orders against her husband.
Despite the order, the husband repeatedly entered her residence, beat her, and threatened retaliation.
Police issued warnings, but abuse continued.
Court Reasoning
Court emphasized the binding legal force of protection orders, stating they are not symbolic.
Repeated violation showed intent and disregard for the law.
Convicted under Article 234 (intentional injury), with protection order violation treated as aggravating.
Outcome
2 years 6 months imprisonment.
Court highlighted that criminal punishment is necessary to give real effect to anti-DV legislation.
Case 2 — Henan: Long-Term Abuse Leading to Death (2018)
Facts
Husband routinely beat his wife for over 10 years.
Neighbors and relatives testified to weekly violent episodes.
One assault resulted in severe injuries, and the victim later died in a hospital.
Court Reasoning
Husband convicted under Article 260(2) – Abuse causing death, not homicide, because death resulted from long-term cumulative abuse.
Court recognized a pattern of domestic terror, not a single incident.
Outcome
12 years imprisonment.
Judgment emphasized the state’s duty to protect victims of long-term violence.
Case 3 — Sichuan: “Mother-in-law Domestic Violence” Case (2019)
Facts
A woman was abused for years by her husband and mother-in-law.
Abuse took the form of beatings, forced labor, and deprivation of food.
The husband and mother-in-law jointly forced her to do heavy work even when sick.
Court Reasoning
Court applied Article 260 (maltreatment) jointly to both defendants.
Recognized that domestic violence is not limited to spouse-to-spouse violence; in-law abuse is also criminal.
Outcome
Husband: 3 years imprisonment
Mother-in-law: 2 years imprisonment
This case became an early example of multi-offender domestic violence liability.
Case 4 — Jiangsu: Domestic Violence Murder Case (2020)
Facts
Husband had a long record of beating his wife.
Despite prior police warnings and community mediation, violence escalated.
In a final episode, the husband fatally beat the victim in their home.
Court Reasoning
Applied Article 232 (intentional homicide) rather than “abuse causing death”, because evidence showed:
High level of violence
History of escalation
Clear intent to cause bodily harm likely to lead to death
Outcome
Life imprisonment.
Court emphasized that repeated DV escalations create foreseeability of fatal outcomes.
Case 5 — Fujian: Landmark Psychological Abuse Recognition Case (2020)
Facts
Husband rarely used physical violence but subjected wife to years of psychological torment, including:
confinement
verbal abuse
constant surveillance
financial deprivation
Victim developed severe depression.
Court Reasoning
Court held psychological abuse can constitute maltreatment (Article 260) if continuous, coercive, and harmful.
Medical diagnosis of depression was key evidence of injury.
Outcome
1 year 8 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years (due to compensation and confession).
Marked one of the earliest judicial recognitions of coercive control in DV cases.
Case 6 — Hunan: Child Abuse Within Domestic Violence (2021)
Facts
Father beat his 8-year-old daughter for years.
Abuse included whipping, locking her in a storage room, and depriving her of meals.
School reported repeated injuries, prompting police intervention.
Court Reasoning
Child victims receive special legal protection.
Court applied Article 260(2) due to the extremely cruel and repeated nature of acts causing serious injury.
Court stressed the heightened responsibility of parents.
Outcome
10 years imprisonment.
Court mandated psychological counseling and state guardianship measures.
Case 7 — Shanghai: DV Case with Digital Evidence (2021)
Facts
Wife recorded repeated assaults on her phone, capturing verbal threats and physical blows.
Husband argued the videos were unlawfully obtained.
The abuse led to hospitalization for fractured ribs.
Court Reasoning
Court accepted self-defensive digital evidence recorded by the victim as admissible.
Convicted under Article 234 (intentional injury).
Noted that digital evidence is crucial in DV cases because victims often cannot obtain witnesses.
Outcome
3 years imprisonment + mandatory anger-management program.
III. Patterns and Judicial Trends
1. Greater Willingness to Use Criminal Law
Courts increasingly sentence DV perpetrators under intentional injury or homicide, not only under the milder “maltreatment” offense.
2. Protection Orders Have Teeth
Violating personal safety protection orders often triggers direct criminal liability.
3. Recognition of Psychological Abuse
Post-2016 courts consider long-term coercive control and psychological torment as criminal maltreatment.
4. Child and Elder Abuse Aggravated
DV against minors or seniors typically triggers Article 260(2) with higher penalties.
5. Digital Evidence Accepted
Recordings, screenshots, chat logs, and medical records are now widely accepted as key proof, making DV prosecution more effective.
RELATED Blog
comments