Voluntary Personal Injury: The Shoulder Strap as an Improper Weapon and Public Prosecution - Analysis of Judgment No. 31853/2025

Italian criminal law, in its constant evolution, daily confronts the need to interpret norms in light of concrete, often unpredictable, facts. One of the most debated issues concerns the qualification of "weapon" and its implications, especially in relation to crimes against persons. In this context, the recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 31853 of 08/05/2025, offers a fundamental clarification on the application of the aggravating circumstance of the use of weapons in the crime of voluntary personal injury, extending its scope to common objects that, due to the manner of their use, assume intrinsic dangerousness. A careful analysis of this decision is crucial for a better understanding of the boundaries of criminal liability and the protection of victims.

The Case Under Examination: The Use of a Shoulder Strap as an Instrument of Offense

The procedural case that led to Judgment No. 31853/2025 of the Court of Cassation features the defendant P. P.M. M. P., involved in an incident of voluntary personal injury. The core of the issue revolved around the use, by the perpetrator, of a common shoulder strap. This object, far from being a "weapon" in the traditional sense of the term, had been employed in two distinct but equally offensive ways: as a whip and, subsequently, tightened around the victim's neck. The Tribunal for Liberty of Catania, with a decision of 24/12/2024, had annulled the previous ruling with referral, raising questions about the correct legal qualification of the action and the prosecution of the crime. The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to resolve the issue, focusing on the applicability of the aggravating circumstance of the use of weapons.

The Qualification of "Improper Weapon": The Maxim of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation, with the ruling in question, has offered a clear and unequivocal interpretation regarding the notion of "improper weapon." This interpretation is condensed in the maxim of the judgment, which represents the legal principle enunciated by the Court:

In matters of voluntary personal injury, the aggravating circumstance of the act committed with weapons, which renders the offense subject to public prosecution pursuant to articles 582, paragraph two, and 585, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, exists when the perpetrator uses a shoulder strap as a whip and as a belt tightened around the victim's neck, it being an improper weapon pursuant to article 4, paragraph two, of Law of April 18, 1975, no. 110.

This passage is of fundamental importance. The Court has reiterated that it is not necessary for an object to have been created with the specific purpose of offense to be considered a weapon. On the contrary, any instrument, even if not a weapon in the strict sense, can assume such a qualification if, in an aggressive context, it is used in a manner that causes harm to the physical integrity of the person. The use of the shoulder strap, in this case, was deemed capable of constituting the aggravating circumstance not only for its potential to cause injury (as a whip) but also for its use as an instrument of coercion and strangulation (belt tightened around the neck). This entails a twofold consequence: on the one hand, the application of the aggravating circumstance provided for by art. 585, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code; on the other hand, the public prosecution of the crime of voluntary personal injury, as provided for by art. 582, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code. Public prosecution means that the State can and must act criminally even without a complaint from the offended party, emphasizing the seriousness of the act.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The decision of the Court of Cassation fits into a well-defined regulatory framework and a consolidated jurisprudential line. The main regulatory references are:

• Article 582 of the Criminal Code: regulates personal injury, providing for different offenses depending on the severity. The second paragraph, referred to by the judgment, concerns aggravated injuries.
• Article 585 of the Criminal Code: lists common aggravating circumstances for non-negligent crimes against persons, including the use of weapons.
• Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law of April 18, 1975, no. 110: this is the key provision that defines "improper weapons," including in this category all instruments, even if not intended for offense, that can be used to harm the physical integrity of persons.

In making its decision, the Court referred to a widely consolidated jurisprudential trend, as demonstrated by the numerous previous maxims cited (Rv. 268750-01 of 2016, Rv. 242617-01 of 2009, Rv. 267713-01 of 2016, etc.). This indicates that the interpretation provided is not an absolute novelty, but rather a confirmation and rigorous application of principles already established, aimed at ensuring maximum protection against violence, even when perpetrated with unconventional means.

Conclusions and Practical Relevance

Judgment No. 31853/2025 of the Court of Cassation holds considerable practical and legal importance. It strongly reiterates the principle that the dangerousness of an object depends not only on its intrinsic nature but also, and above all, on the manner in which it is used. A common object like a shoulder strap, if used with offensive and injurious intent, transforms into a veritable improper weapon, with all the consequent criminal implications. This means that the seriousness of the crime of personal injury significantly increases, and justice can intervene autonomously, without waiting for the victim's initiative.

For victims of aggression, this ruling represents an additional guarantee, as it ensures that even in the absence of traditional "weapons," the law recognizes the seriousness of the aggression and the need for a criminal response. For legal professionals, the judgment consolidates an interpretative trend that broadens the notion of improper weapon, providing a more effective tool to combat violence and protect individual integrity. It is a clear warning: any object can become a weapon in the hands of someone intending to cause harm, and the law is ready to recognize it and punish it with due severity.