Legal qualification of a punch causing a suborbital hematoma as simple bodily harm of minor gravity

Facts

On 24 March 1990, in the morning, the accused addressed insulting remarks to the victim, accusing him of being a pimp and demanding that he leave his son’s apartment before 4 p.m.. At the agreed time, the accused went to the address provided. The victim, informed of his arrival, came out of the dwelling and punched the accused in the face. A doctor found in the latter a left suborbital hematoma, accompanied by painful palpation of the malar bone, as well as pain in the neck and coccyx region.

On 2 June 1992, the Police Court of the Orbe district found the accused guilty of insults and the victim guilty of simple bodily harm of minor gravity. Each was fined 300 francs, and the procedural costs were split between them, civil rights being reserved.

On 28 October 1992, the Cantonal Court of Cassation dismissed the victim’s appeal. Against this ruling, the latter filed a nullity appeal with the Criminal Cassation Division of the Federal Court, alleging a violation of arts. 123 and 33 SCC. He sought the annulment of the contested decision, referral of the matter back to the cantonal authority, as well as legal aid.

Considerations

The Court examined the legal qualification of the facts established, namely whether the punch delivered by the victim should be classified as assault (Art. 126 SCC) or simple bodily harm of minor gravity (Art. 123 para. 2 SCC). According to case law, assault refers to physical harm that, while not causing injury or harm to health, exceeds what is socially acceptable. In contrast, simple bodily harm protects bodily integrity and health, both physical and mental, and includes harm causing temporary disorders or minor injuries such as bruises or hematomas.

In the present case, the punch caused a suborbital hematoma, resulting from a rupture of blood vessels with subcutaneous effusion. The Court considered that such a hematoma, even if superficial, constitutes a lesion of the human body within the meaning of Art. 123 SCC, as it involves an objective impairment of physical integrity. Unlike assault, which is limited to temporary pain or redness without physical traces, the hematoma leaves visible and lasting marks, clearly distinguishing it from assault.

The Court also recalled that the distinction between assault and simple bodily harm can be delicate in borderline cases, particularly where bruises or…