Causing An Accident By Overtaking The Vehicle In Front Of It Despite The No Overtaking Sign, Conscious Negligence
T.C.
JUDICIARY
CRIMINAL COURT
E. 2016/1417
K. 2017/6429
T. 19.9.2017
CAUSING AN ACCIDENT BY OVERLAPPING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF OVERLAPPING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF OVERLAPPING DESPITE THE FLAT LANE LINE INDICATING NO OVERLAPPING AND NO OVERLAPPING SHEET (Defendant Acted Consciously
Accepting that the Action was Committed with Simple Negligence and Misjudging the Nature of the Offense by Accepting that the Action was Committed with Simple Negligence and Misjudging the Nature of the Offense, While a Judgment should be Established by Accepting that the Action was Committed with Negligence and Applying Article 22/3 of the TPC)
OVERSHIP KILLING (Despite the Straight Lane Line Indicating No Overtaking and No Overtaking Sign, Overtaking the Vehicle in Front of It Caused an Accident with Witness Statements and All
Inadmissibility of Assigning Incomplete Punishment to the Defendant by Accepting that the Defendant Committed the Action with Conscious Negligence, which is Fixed from the File Scope, and by Accepting that the Action was Committed with Simple Negligence and by Making a Mistake in the Nature of the Crime, While a Judgment Should be Established by Applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code)
CONSCIOUS OVERSHIP ( Accepting that the Defendant, who is fixed from the Witness Statements and the Whole File Scope that he caused an accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him despite the straight lane line indicating that overtaking is prohibited and the No Overtaking Sign, committed his action with conscious negligence and it is necessary to establish a judgment by applying Art. 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. Art. 22/3 should be applied and a verdict should be established by applying the Article 22/3, while it is wrong to determine an incomplete punishment for the defendant by accepting that the action was committed with simple negligence and by making a mistake in the nature of the crime)
5237/m.22/3,62 SUMMARY : While it is necessary to accept that the defendant, who overtook the vehicle in front of him despite the straight lane line indicating that there is a prohibition of overtaking and the overtaking prohibition sign, caused an accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him, and it is fixed from the witness statements and the whole file scope, committed the act of the defendant with conscious negligence and a judgment should be established by applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, it is unjust to determine an incomplete sentence for the defendant by accepting that the act was committed with simple negligence and by making a mistake in the nature of the crime.
CASE : The verdict on the conviction of the defendant for the crime of negligent homicide was appealed by the defendant’s defense counsel and the attorneys of the participants, and the file was examined and the necessity was considered:
DECISION : According to the trial, the evidence collected and shown in the decision, the court’s opinion and appreciation formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the scope of the file examined, the objections of the defendant’s defense counsel to the crime attributed to the defendant not being fixed, incomplete examination, fault, and the amount of the penalty, and the objections of the participants’ attorney to the amount of the penalty, the non-application of Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code to the defendant, and that the driver’s license should be taken for a long time are rejected,
However; on 16.10.2013 at around 18.20, while the accused driver was traveling on a 7-meter wide, unlit, two-way, curved, curved, slope-free, dry, asphalt-coated road outside the settlement with the vehicle under the control of the accused driver, he entered the lane of the opposite direction, and the front parts of the car under his control and the car under the control of the other driver who was traveling
In the incident that resulted in the death of the occupants of the vehicle and the injury of more than one person as a result of hitting the front parts of the bus; despite the straight lane line indicating the prohibition of overtaking and the prohibition of overtaking sign
While it is necessary to accept that the defendant, who caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him, committed the act with conscious negligence and a judgment should be established by applying Article 22/3 of the TCC, the defendant was sentenced to incomplete punishment by accepting that the act was committed with simple negligence and by making a mistake in the nature of the crime,
CONCLUSION : Since it is contrary to the law and the appeals of the participants’ attorneys are deemed appropriate in this respect, it was decided unanimously on 19.09.2017 to VACATE the judgment for these reasons in accordance with the Article 8 of the Law No. 5320 in accordance with the article of the CPC No. 1412, which is still in force in accordance with Article 8 of the Law No. 5320.