4-238 B. \/367 D. Decision of 22.10.2002
\nSummary: those who have taken effective action against each other and as indicated in the doctor’s reports
\napart from the conflicting accounts of the injured defendants, which of the first unfair attacks was carried out and which of the fights
\nwhen I start to precise who not detected in a format that is clear.
\n(765 P. K. m. 51, 59, 456, 457)
\nCase: Mehmet Ali’s 456\/2, 457\/1, 59. in accordance with articles
\nElazig 2. 7.11.2000 days and 286-587 by the Criminal Court of First Instance
\nafter the verdict was appealed by the defendant, the Court of Cassation, which examined the case 4. Punishment
\nApartment with 24.04.2001 days and 3796-4780 numbers;
\nAccording to the defendant’s defense, which cannot be proven otherwise, in order to water the animals of the complaining Mehmetin
\nthe application of the provisions of unfair cursing for the benefit of the accused by cutting off the water of the field
\ndecision without weighing whether to require
\nhas been given.
\nThe Local Court, on the other hand, with 18.9.2001 days and 369-443 numbers; as is known, reducing the legal and general penalty
\nincitement, under the influence of rage or violent action caused by an unfair act of the perpetrator
\nit is defined as a crime. Tcynin 51. the wrath of the verb
\nor the fact that the justified action is committed under the influence of depression and fever, and this is caused by unfair incitement
\nis required.
\nHowever, in our concrete event, which is determined to be carried out as stated above, the accused is angry or justified
\nit cannot be said that his action was influenced by depression and fever. Because there is no claim and all
\nin the light of the narratives, the water from the ark, which the defendant used to water the land, was used by the other defendant
\nit’s not fixed that it was cut. When the defendant sees the other defendant with the herd of animals, the other defendant
\nhe screamed without any influence, screamed and asked him to take his herd, again we are accused
\neven after his defense in our court said what the other defendant was doing, the trial and
\nhe carried out effective action with the subject of the verdict. In other words, the other accused Mehmet of water
\nthe defendant does not yet know that he was cut. Response and reaction to a shouting scolding
\nbeyond saying what you are doing in your nature, there is a question of swearing and insulting him
\nis not.
\nIn this case, the application of incitement provisions in favor of the accused was not considered possible, and in fact, the previous one
\nSection 5 of the evidence and evaluation of the provision. both defendants in the incident
\na motive and determination has been made that there is no legal reason for incitement. grounds
\nhe resisted the previous sentence.
\nThis decision was also appealed by the defendant on file, Supreme Court C. Corruption of the Attorney General
\n12.7.2002 sent to the first president with a daily notification of the willingness of the General Assembly of punishment
\nread, discussed and considered the need:
\nDecision: in a concrete case where it was decided that the defendant should be punished for effective action, with a special apartment
\nnon-compliance between the Local Court, the application of the provisions of decisiveness against the accused
\nit is collected at the point of determination that it cannot be implemented.
\nAccording to the contents of the reviewed file;
\nIn the crime scene determination minutes held on 21.5.2000; K. Village headman salute by phone
\nwater found in the upper part of the village was examined at the scene after reports of a fight.
\nthe accused Mehmet Ali, who watered his garden by transporting the water from his spring through the soil channel
\nthe discussion between Mehmet, who wanted to buy water from the same place, turned into a fight, accused Mehmet Dec.
\nMehmet’s , who was injured as a result of hitting Ali with a shovel, was taken to hospital, the accused Mehmet
\nAli was found at the scene with a press wound, and the shovel used in the incident was confiscated
\nthe minutes were also signed by Selami, the village headman, and Mehmet Ali, the accused. Which had been done
\nas a result of the preparatory investigation, the accused took effective action against Mehmet Ali and Mehmet
\na public lawsuit has been filed to punish them for their alleged involvement.
\nDefendant Mehmet Ali in a statement obtained by law enforcement; the garden located in the east of his house in the morning
\nat 10.30 am, while watering, Mehmetin from the same village, a herd of animals to the pasture located on the upper side
\nwhen he asked this person why he was doing this, he would water his animals.
\nhe said that when he asked him not to use the water channel, he responded with an expletive and a shepherd’s stick found in his hand
\nhe hit her in the head with a shovel, and she confronted him with a shovel, and they hit each other.,
\nhe then declared that his nephew Octay had come and separated, that Mehmet had previously fed him animosity, that he was a complainant.
\nIn the trial, Mehmet turned the water when he realized that the water had been cut off while watering his garden on the day of the incident
\nwhen you saw that you were there, why did you cut the water, let me water my garden, and then you said You should cut it?
\na person, what are you talking about? he said he hit him with a stick in his hand, a pistol in his waist
\nhe tried to put a bullet in his mouth by removing the shovel to prevent it and drop the gun in his hand
\nhe threw it, didn’t know where it came from, his son took the gun that fell to the ground and ran away with the other defendant.
\nhe said that they continued to bogus, that the accused Mehmetin told him that he was just babbling,
\nhe said he did not say anything other than that, recalling a law enforcement statement when asked about the reason for the conflict,
\nhe said his testimony in court was true, and that there had been no previous discussions and quarrels between them Dec.
\nnot told him.
\nAbout the defendant to Mehmet Ali simple effective action for the conviction decision is final
\non the morning of the incident, Mehmet complained, in his essence consistent way, to pasture to graze his animals
\nthat you’re gone, that the accused Mehmet Alin drove the cattle out of here, that you’re hurting me,
\nthat there was no water discussion between them, that there was a bag of salt to give to the animals, a shepherd’s stick decked out
\nhe did not carry it, and the accused Mehmet Ali had a shovel in his hand to protect himself when he hit him in the head
\nthe accused said he was wounded in the arm when he raised his arm and tried to escape before being hit
\nMehmet Ali’s nephew said that Octay held him, that he never hit the other defendant, the first
\nhe stated that he had renounced his complaint after the provision was established.
\nWitnesses, who are relatives of the parties, have a habitual knowledge of the leader and Mary at the time of the incident
\nit is understood that there are not.
\nWhen the doctor’s reports of the accused complain are examined; Elazig State Hospital about Mehmet
\n6.6.2000 report organized by orthopedics expert; left elbow operated due to open fracture
\nit was stated that he would not be life-threatening and would remain out of work and power for 45 days and would recover in 90 days.
\nAbout Mehmet Ali, 4.7.2000 days organized by the Elazig Forensic Medical Institution
\nin the report; about the reports previously organized by health Ocagi and the State Hospital
\n2×1 cm in the left parietal region, which was caused by blunt trauma to the head.liquid fog and
\nin the middle is described an irregular incision with bleeding edges, any altar dimag land, on the headstone
\nit has been reported that the fracture, large vascular nerve, internal organ lesion is not described, the failure does not endanger his life, it will interfere with his work and strength for 7 days. When all this information and documents are considered and evaluated together Dec.;
\nThose who took effective action against each other and were injured as indicated in the doctor’s reports
\napart from the conflicting accounts of the defendants, which was the first unfair attack and who was the fight
\nit is clear that it has not been definitively determined. Gotta Punishment Of The General Assembly Of
\nthe first is unfair, as is accepted in the settled and continuous land of private apartments.
\nthe benefit of the defendant from this situation, which remains doubtful as it cannot be determined who the movement originated from
\nit should be accepted that he has carried out effective action under mild unfair incitement. Then local
\nunfair incitement against accused Mehmet Ali on grounds that do not correspond to the scope of the court’s file
\nthe decision that there is no place for the implementation of its provisions is not accurate.
\nIn this respect, the Local Court must decide on the violation of the resistance provision.
\nConclusion: for the reasons described, the Local Court has broken the resistance provision, instead of the file
\nsent to the Supreme Court C. Attorney General’S office , 22.10.2002 day notification request
\nit was decided by unanimous decision as appropriate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
4-238 B. \/367 D. Decision of 22.10.2002 Summary: those who have taken effective action against each other and as indicated in the doctor’s reports apart from the conflicting accounts of the injured defendants, which of the first unfair attacks was carried out and which of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n