Turkish Court of Cassation
3rd Criminal Chamber
Docket: 2017/6688
Decision: 2018/607
Decision Date: January 22, 2018
CRIME OF INJURY – WHEN THE PERSON WAS INJURED IN A LIFE-ENDORSING SITUATION AND CAUSING A BONE FRACTURE – THE NEED TO DEPARTURE FROM THE LOWER LIMIT
SUMMARY: Given that the defendant’s act of injury resulted in injuries to the victim that were both life-endangering and caused a bone fracture, this circumstance can only be considered grounds for departing from the lower limit in determining the basic sentence. It must be taken into account that the defendant is only liable for the most severe consequence: inflicting injury that was life-endangering.
(5237 Law No. 53, 86, 87) (ANY. MAH. 08.10.2015, Date: 2014/140, E. 2015/85, K.)
The verdict rendered by the local court has been appealed, and the documents have been read;
It has been duly discussed and considered;
The other appeals deemed unfounded are rejected, however;
Given that the defendant’s act of wounding resulted in injuries that endangered the victim’s life and caused bone fractures, this circumstance can only be used as a reason to deviate from the lower limit in determining the basic sentence. The defendant is only responsible for the most severe consequence, which is the act of wounding that endangered his life, and after applying Articles 86/1 and 87/1-d-last of the Turkish Penal Code, Article 87/3 of the Turkish Penal Code has been reconsidered. The defendant was given an excessive sentence by increasing the sentence pursuant to Article 12 of the Constitutional Court.
Despite the defendant’s confession and the medical report confirming that he committed the act with a stool considered a weapon, the defendant was given an inadequate sentence by omitting Articles 86/3-e and 87/1-end of the Turkish Penal Code.
The Constitutional Court’s decision dated October 8, 2015, numbered 2014/140, numbered 2015/85, published in the Official Gazette dated November 24, 2015, and numbered 29542, and entered into force, necessitated a re-evaluation of the defendant’s legal situation in terms of deprivation of rights.
The Court found it necessary to overturn the defendant’s legal position in terms of the defendant’s appeals, and since the defendant’s appeals were found to be valid, the judgment was reinstated for these reasons by Law No. 5320, as amended by Article 33 of Law No. 6723. Pursuant to Article 8/1 of the Law and Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412, which is in effect, the case is REVERSED as requested, and pursuant to Article 326/Final of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant’s vested rights are reserved, a unanimous decision was reached on January 22, 2018.
LINK: yuksekMahkemedetay