28 Aug DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SUPREME COURT DECISION
8.Department Of Corrections
2020/14611 B. , 2021/16168 D.
“Case Law Text”
Court :Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime : depriving a person of his liberty
Verdict: acquittal
As necessary, discussed and considered:
In the face of the appeal of the provisions of the deputy of the Ministry of family, labour and social policies of the complainant, who has been damaged in such a way as to take the adjective participating in the crime and who has a request to participate in a public case, the provisions of the complaining institution have the right and authority to appeal, and it is understood that the will to participate in the submitted petition has been laid out, CMK 5271.237/2. in accordance with the article, the participating and deputy of the Ministry of family and Social Policies decided not to participate in the case in the capacity of the participating ministry in the review of the appeal;
I-in the review of the appeal of the Public Prosecutor;
As stated in the decision of the General Assembly on 06.11.2007 day, 2007/3-167 basis, 2007/222, the period of appeal of the prosecutor of the Republic for the decisions of the Criminal Court of First Instance around the judiciary; 8/1 of law 5320. CMUK No. 1412, which must be applied in accordance with article.310/3. according to the article, it is one month from tefhim, the provisions of the Public Prosecutor given on 12.12.2013 after the legal period 13.01.2014 of the appeal request of the Public Prosecutor CMUK.nun 317. refusal in accordance with the article,
II-in the review conducted in terms of the appeal of the deputy of the Ministry of family, Labor and Social Services involved;
By occurrence and entire file scope; crime on a victim …’s working as a janitor in the school of education, the defendant “Cenk Yildirim” Facebook with the user name of the victim on a social networking site and offline, he established a friendship with the photos of victims on the same site through messaging on the date of the event itself will agreed to meet with the victim to a bet that [although the defendant “Cenk Yildirim” Facebook itself is not called a user may argue that in this case, although the range as part of a Facebook message file based on the content of transcripts, from the defendant’s message to the victim, “Look, I’ve been working at the school for 3 years …” and his own
./..
S / 2
Facebook correspondence as the number of the investigation and prosecution authorities reported the mobile phone number, the victim as his own number, as well as the statement of the prosecutor’s Office statement ” … Cenk Yildirim name and open Facebook address … “as a statement is fixed.] the victim went in front of the workplace where the defendant worked, when the accused was waiting, he started walking towards his house, he followed the defendant and caught up with the victim, they started walking towards the hospital together, subsequently, noting that the defendant is busy around the garden of a house unused ruined inviting victims, the victim agreed and together they entered the garden, the defendant of the victim’s hand in the photo is not to say that out of the garden, from the back to the side of the victim of the defendant and forcibly taking out his cell phone went again and again to come first came into the yard where the defendant to the victim in the garden of the house on the condition that he would give his phone, entering stated, upon the rejection of the victim, the defendant forcibly put on the wrist all body of the victim into the House, I love you inside, I care about you very much with statements that he held his hands by his wrists and tried to hug the victim, who was leaning against the wall, but the victim got rid of the defendant’s hand and screamed out of the open window, the defendant panicked and left the victim, and the victim ran away, the result of the series of incidents is also fixed by the witnesses who were at the scene of the crime … and …the investigation statements that were taken in the heat of the crime. Although the defendant’s claim that he was at his friend’s house at the time of the incident is confirmed by the statements of his wife and referred to as a witness, the statements of witness Memet, who wanted to come to the courthouse and testify, even though he was not invited as a witness, do not correspond to the HTS records received. As a result, the content of the Facebook messages, the victim’s statements showing the appropriate stability and all these points expressed, the defendant’s action against the child for sexual purposes and touching the body in the form of holding the victim’s hands and trying to hug the evil eye 103/1 TCK. in accordance with the second sentence of the article, instead of being punished for sexual abuse at the level of groping, decisions on acquittal are made on Written grounds without thoroughly evaluating the evidence,
Contrary to the law, the appeals of the deputy of the Ministry of family, labour and Social Services involved were considered in place in this respect, so the provisions were for this reason 8/1 of law 5320. CMUK No. 1412, which must be applied in accordance with article.in 321. it was decided by unanimous decision on 16.06.2021.
No Comments