Unjust Provocation, Determining Who Caused The Crime To Begin
Supreme Court Decision
Notification No: 1 – 2013/232528
COURT: Istanbul Anatolia 7th Heavy Penal Court
DATE and NO: 07/11/2012, 2011/203 (E) and 2012/321 (K)
DEFENDANT: M.. E..
CRIME: Intentional murder
IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION
The evidence gathered was examined at the decision stage, and the defendant Mustafa was found guilty of the crime of murdering İbrahim.
The nature of the crime was determined in accordance with the findings and the results of the investigation, and the mitigating circumstances were assessed. The defense was rejected on convincing grounds, and based on the file examined, no inaccuracies were found in the judgment other than the grounds for reversal, the defendant’s counsel’s appeals in the hearing and the appeal petition regarding legitimate defense, the nature of the crime, and the inadequacy of the reduction made due to unjust provocation were rejected as unfounded.
However;
Since the defendant was arrested 21 days after the incident, the court cannot rely on his defense and the statements of the witness , cannot be relied upon to establish a verdict. Considering the statement given by the witness Ebubekir, the owner of the kokoreç shop where the incident occurred, immediately after the incident, and the statements of the witnesses Volkan and Kadir, it cannot be determined which party initiated the fight that broke out due to the exchange of glances. during the application of Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code, which provides for a prison sentence of 12 to 18 years, instead of imposing a sentence close to the upper limit, an error was made in determining the level of provocation, and a prison sentence of 15 years was imposed in writing, resulting in an inadequate sentence,
This necessitated the reversal of the decision, and since the appellant’s counsel’s appeal objections were deemed valid for this reason, the decision was reversed in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contrary to the opinion in the notice of appeal, and the defendant’s counsel’s request for release was rejected based on the sentence amount and the time spent in custody. was decided unanimously on November 18, 2014.
This decision, issued on November 18, 2014, was presented in accordance with the law and openly on November 20, 2014, in the presence of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation and the defendant M.. E.., who had presented his defense at the hearing, in the absence of his defense attorney.
The defendant M.. E.., who had presented his defense at the hearing, was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison for the crime of insulting a public official, and the sentence was upheld.