The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the Court of Appeal, which acquitted Jovan Mujović (53) from Beranac of charges of attempted aggravated murder, and returned the case to that court for a retrial.
The decision was made after the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Bijelo Polje filed an appeal against the Court of Appeal's verdict in June.
The case concerns an incident in June 2020 in Berane, when a shooting occurred between Mujović and Siniša Drljević (44). According to the indictment, Drljević fired a gun from a Renault Megane car at a Mercedes in which Mujović was, who then returned fire. On that occasion, M.Č, her common-law husband AV and their three-month-old child were put in danger.
The High Court in Bijelo Polje found Mujović guilty of attempted aggravated murder and illegal possession of a weapon in 2024, and sentenced him to three years in prison, while Drljević was acquitted of the charges. After appeals by the prosecution and defense, the Court of Appeals overturned the first-instance verdict in June of this year and acquitted Mujović, reasoning that the act he was charged with “is not a criminal offense under the law.”
The Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Bijelo Polje filed an appeal against that verdict with the Supreme Court, stating that there were significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, incorrectly determined facts, and violations of the Criminal Code, and proposed that the verdict be reversed and Mujović convicted.
"The Supreme Court, deciding on the appeal, found that the Court of Appeal's verdict was incomprehensible, contradictory and without sufficient explanation of key facts, especially who started the shooting first," the statement reads.
The court also stated that the Court of Appeal incorrectly identified the legal provision it referred to, and that the operative part of the verdict was unclear to the extent that it could not be determined for which criminal offense the defendant Mujović was acquitted.
"The Supreme Court concluded that this constituted a significant violation of the provisions of criminal procedure, which is why the verdict could not be reviewed, so it was quashed and the case was returned for retrial to the Court of Appeal," they announced.
Bonus video:
