Man sentenced to 15.5 years in prison for locking parents in a room and setting it on fire over property dispute in Bukhara

In the city of Bukhara, court proceedings have concluded regarding a horrific family crime case stemming from a dispute over property and housing.

A 29-year-old individual named X.N., who intentionally poured gasoline and set fire to the home where his parents resided, was found guilty under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 15 years and 6 months (15.5 years) of imprisonment. The regional appellate court upheld this strict sentence without changes.

Locked in a room and doused with gasoline: How did the tragedy happen?

Details of the horrific incident that occurred on May 15, 2026, were fully disclosed in court materials and investigation data:

• The root cause of the conflict: The 29-year-old man demanded that his mother officially register the apartment belonging to her in his name;

• Refusal and horrific intent: Having received a firm refusal from his parents, the son started a fight and locked them in the bedroom;

• Gasoline and fire: The defendant poured gasoline throughout the apartment, intentionally set the house on fire, and fled the scene;

• Miraculous escape: The elderly parents, trapped inside the room, managed to break down the door and escape the flames and thick smoke, surviving the ordeal.

Court verdict and rejection of the appeal

Taking into account serious crimes such as attempted murder and intentional destruction of property, the court of first instance had sentenced X.N. to a final term of 15 years and 6 months of imprisonment:

• The convict's argument: Dissatisfied with the harsh sentence, the defendant filed an appeal. In his appeal, he claimed that his parents were not at home at the time the fire was set and that he had no intention of killing them;

• Conclusion of the judicial panel: The criminal judicial panel of the Bukhara Regional Court, having re-examined the collected physical evidence, witness testimonies, and victim statements, found the first-instance verdict to be fully lawful and upheld it without changes.