The Defendant Who Did Not Reach The Age Of Fifteen At The Time Of The Crime – Excessive Sentence Determination By Making A Discount In Accordance With The Article Of The Law, Although A Discount Should Be Made In Accordance With The Turkish Penal Code
T.C. JUDICIARY
3rd Criminal Chamber
Main: 2016/11885
Decision: 2016/15033
Date of Decision: 28.06.2016
OFFENSE OF INTENTIONAL INJURY – DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT REACH THE AGE OF FIFTEEN AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE – IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT BY MAKING A REDUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARTICLE OF THE LAW ALTHOUGH A REDUCTION SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TURKISH PENAL CODE – REVERSAL OF THE VERDICT
SUMMARY: According to the scope of the file, it was necessary to revoke the verdict on the grounds that it was not deemed inappropriate to reduce the penalty imposed on the defendant, who was born in … and did not complete the age of fifteen on the date of … when the crime was committed, in accordance with the article of the Turkish Penal Code, although a discount should be made in accordance with the article of the aforementioned Law.
(Article 31, 52, 62, 86 of the Turkish Penal Code 5237) (Article 231 of the Turkish Penal Code 5271)
Case: The defendant … was sentenced to a judicial fine of 2,000.00 Turkish Liras pursuant to Articles 86/2, 86/3-e, 31/3, 62 and 52/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, to defer the announcement of the verdict pursuant to Articles 231/5, 231/8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 and 23/1 of the Child Protection Law No. 5395, and to determine a supervision period of 3 years….. Following the decision of the Juvenile Court dated 25/12/2009 and numbered 2008/84 Esas, 2009/441, the judgment previously given by the aforementioned Court was announced due to the fact that the child dragged into crime committed a new crime within the trial period, and the defendant was sentenced to 2,000.00 judicial fine in accordance with Articles 86/2, 86/3-e, 31/3, 62 and 52/2 of the Law No. 5237. Since the request for reversal in favor of the law was made by the Ministry of Justice with the letter dated 26.04.2016 and numbered 2016/2468 against the Decision of the same Court dated 15/12/2015 and numbered 2015/545 Esas, 2015/715, the case file of this case was examined by being sent to our Chamber with the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office dated 17.05.2016 and numbered 2016/189062.
In the aforementioned notification;
According to the scope of the file, it was understood that the decision to overturn the aforementioned decision pursuant to Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 was reported to be reversed in accordance with Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, on the grounds that it was not deemed inappropriate to reduce the sentence imposed on the defendant, who was born on 30/09/1993 and did not complete the age of 15 on 27/05/2008 when the crime was committed, from the sentence imposed on the defendant, which should be reduced in accordance with Article 31/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, although it should be reduced in accordance with Article 31/3 of the aforementioned Law.
Necessity was discussed and considered:
In accordance with Article 23 of the Child Protection Law, it is regulated that the statute of limitations will stop within the 3-year supervision period determined in accordance with Article 23 of the Child Protection Law, in paragraph 231/11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is regulated that the court will announce the verdict in case of violation of the obligations regarding the supervised release measure, and taking into account that the statute of limitations will start to run again on the date of the commission of the new crime, the 4-year primary statute of limitations calculated according to Article 66 of the Law No. 5237 for the act of intentional injury charged to the defendant has expired between the date of the interrogation on 17.02.2009 and the date of the verdict. It was decided unanimously on 28.06.2016 to send the file to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals to be sent to the Ministry of Justice for the appreciation of whether the 4-year primary statute of limitations calculated according to Article 66 of the Law No. 5237, the 4-year primary statute of limitations expired between the date of the interrogation on 17.02.2009 and the date of the judgment, and to examine the other requests for reversal in favor of the law after the right of appreciation is used.