Causing An Accident By Overtaking The Vehicle In Front Despite The No Overtaking Sign – Conscious Negligence
T.C.
COURT OF APPEALS
12th CRIMINAL CHAMBER
E. 2016/1417
K. 2017/6429
T. 19.9.2017
* Causing an accident by overtaking the vehicle in front despite the solid lane marking indicating a no-overtaking zone and the no-overtaking sign (While it should have been established that the defendant committed the act with conscious negligence and a ruling should have been made in accordance with Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, it was accepted that the act was committed with simple negligence and a mistake was made regarding the nature of the crime)
* Manslaughter by Negligence (Despite the solid lane marking indicating a no-passing zone and the no-passing sign, the defendant caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him. Based on witness statements and the entire case file, it is established that the defendant acted with conscious negligence, and therefore, the application of Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) should have been made. 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, while the act was deemed to have been committed with simple negligence and an error was made regarding the nature of the crime, resulting in an inadequate sentence being imposed on the defendant)
* CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE (Despite the solid lane marking indicating a no-passing zone and the no-passing sign, the defendant caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him. Based on witness statements and the entire case file, it is established that the defendant committed the act with conscious negligence, and the application of Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) should have been made. 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. However, the act was deemed to have been committed with simple negligence, and an error was made in determining the nature of the crime, resulting in an inadequate sentence being imposed on the defendant.
5237/m.22/3,62 SUMMARY: Despite the solid lane marking indicating a no-passing zone and the no-passing sign, the defendant caused an accident by passing the vehicle in front of him, as established by witness statements and the entire case file. The defendant’s act was committed with conscious negligence, and a judgment should have been rendered by applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). , while the act was deemed to have been committed with simple negligence and a mistake was made regarding the nature of the crime, resulting in an inadequate sentence being imposed on the defendant.
CASE: The judgment convicting the defendant of manslaughter was appealed by the defendant’s counsel and the representative of the parties, and the case file was reviewed and the necessary considerations were made:
DECISION: Based on the trial, the evidence presented and considered in the judgment, the court’s opinion and discretion in accordance with the results of the investigation, and the scope of the case file reviewed, the defendant’s counsel’s appeal that the crime attributed to the defendant has not been proven, that there has been insufficient investigation, and that there has been negligence, and the co-defendant’s counsel’s appeal regarding the amount of the penalty, the non-application of Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code to the defendant, and the need for a long-term revocation of the defendant’s license are rejected.
However,
On October 16, 2013, at approximately 6:20 p.m., while the defendant was driving a vehicle outside a residential area on a 7-meter-wide, unlit, two-way, curved, flat, dry, asphalt-paved road, the defendant driver entered the opposite lane and collided the front part of his vehicle with the front part of the bus driven by another driver, resulting in the death of those in his vehicle and the injury of multiple individuals; Despite the straight lane marking indicating a no-passing zone and the no-passing sign, the defendant caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him. Based on witness statements and the entire case file, it is established that the defendant acted with conscious negligence, and a ruling should have been made by applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. the act was deemed to have been committed with simple negligence, and a mistake was made regarding the nature of the crime, resulting in an inadequate sentence being imposed on the defendant,
CONCLUSION: This is contrary to the law, and the appellant’s objections are therefore deemed valid. For these reasons, the judgment is hereby overturned in accordance with Article 8 of Law No. 5320, which is currently in force, and Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, as requested. The decision was made unanimously on September 19, 2017.