T.C. Supreme Court First Criminal Deparment

Base No: 2014/6118
Decision No: 2015/3222
K. Historical:

Communique No: 1-2013/332054
Court : Adana 4. Criminal Court
Date and NO : 02/05/2013, 2012/239 (E) and 2013/244 (K)
Crime: killing qualified people, assisting in this crime

The evidence collected is examined at the scene of the verdict and the defendant .. he is a minor .. a child who was accused of premeditated murder .. the defendant in accordance with the conclusion of his act, the occurrence and the outcome of the investigation .. determination of criminal merit, reason for discount of appreciation appreciated, defense evaluated on credible grounds; defendants
… it is accepted and appreciated that the evidence obtained on the charge of intentionally helping to kill the victim is not sufficient for conviction in accordance with Article 223/2-e of the CMK, since there is no hit except for the reasons of violation in the provisions given in accordance with the file under review, the defendant .. subuta, vasfa, legitimate defense of the defense, subuta, defendants from the point of view of the accused who acquitted the deputy involved .. with the rejection of other appeals, which were admirable and not seen in place;
1-defendant .. about the victim .. a conviction established for premeditated murder and subject to appeal in resen, as well as the acquittal provisions established for crimes of intentionally helping to kill the victim, such as the opinion in the communique;
But,
2- A child who has previously committed a crime with the victim in the same office they are working with, between them can not be certain who started it for a reason, are experiencing a discussion about three weeks ago from the day of the event, therefore a child who has committed a crime, drawn from the work of Elijah, therefore, the antagonism between them occurs when the day of the event a few days ago, was characterized by discussion between them again … a child who has committed a crime and the victim injured in that simple way, a child who has committed a crime on the day of the event … friends with the other defendants before his death due to events that happened between them, taking him in order to intimidate, going to the workplace where the victim worked, waiting for the deceased to leave work, when the victim left work, the child who was first dragged into the crime Elijah went to him and took him to the alley, saying, “Come and talk to you,” where a fight broke out between them, the accused, who came to the scene to intimidate the deceased … in the case where he caused his death by stabbing the decapitated victim in the chest area as indicated in the autopsy report,
a) Elijah, the child who was dragged into the crime, meant that the victim was beaten, not killed. To that end, the defendant .. and he brought the others to the scene. But the accused … went beyond the instructions given to him instead of the tattoo … and stabbed him to death.
In this case,.. since his perseverance is aimed at beating, he cannot be held directly responsible for killing people, he must be punished in accordance with Article 87/4 of the first sentence of TCK 5237 for the crime of killing as a result of deliberate wounding, but he must be mistaken for the criminal nature and establish a provision as aiding the crime of deliberate killing,
b) it is not clear who initiated the events that occurred before between the victim and the child who was dragged into the crime … as well as according to witness statements, the victim’s unfair incitement in the form of beating the child who was dragged into the crime before the incident caused the unfair incitement provisions about the child who was dragged into the crime
29 of TCK No. 5237. determination of excess penalty by not observing that the minimum discount should be made in accordance with the article,
c-defendant … although there is no convincing material evidence that he helped kill the victim or deliberately injured the victim, rather than making an acquittal decision against the accused, establishing a sentence of conviction in writing with a misleading assessment;
And the defendant … and the child dragged to the crime … since the appeals of the defenders in the appeal petitions and the trial review were therefore seen in place, the provisions were contrary to the thought in the communique (distortion), the reason for the violation and the time they spent in detention, the child dragged to the crime … and the accused … were released for crimes of intentionally helping to kill, if they are not arrested or convicted of another crime, it was unanimously decided on 20/05/2015 to write to the prosecutor general of the Supreme Court for their release.
20/05/2015 this decision was made on the day of the Supreme Court of Public Prosecutor …’s presence and the defense of the defendant Ibrahim Güneş defense lawyer … in the absence of 21/05/2015 on the day of procedural and clear.