T..C. Supreme Court
3.Criminal Department
Originally: 2017/6688
The Verdict: 2018T.C. Supreme Court
3.CT.C. Supreme Court
3.Criminal Department
Originally: 2017/6688
The Verdict: 2018/607
Decision Date: 22.01.2018
THE CRIME OF WOUNDING – WHEN THE PARTICIPANT IS INJURED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CAUSE BOTH A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION AND A BONE FRACTURE – THE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE LOWER LIMIT
SUMMARY: In the face of the fact that the participant was injured in a way that caused both a life-threatening situation and a bone fracture as a result of the defendant’s wounding action, it should be taken into account that this situation can only be made the reason for moving away from the lower limit in determining the basic penalty, and the defendant will only be responsible for the wounding action in a way that causes a life-threatening situation, which is the most severe consequence.RY: In UMUMMARY: In the face ociUMMARY: the face of the fact that the participant was injured in a way that caused both a life-threatening situation and a bone fracture as a result of the defendant’s wounding action, it should be taken into account that this situation can only be made the reason for moving away from the lower limit in determining the basic penalty, and the defendant will only be responsible for the wounding action in a way that causes a life-threatening situation, which is the most severe consequence.
(5237 P. K. m. 53, 86, 87) (ANY. MAH. 08.10.2015 D. 2014/140 E. 2015/85 K.)
The decision given by the local court is appealed by reading the documents;
The need was discussed and considered;
To the rejection of other appeals that are not seen on the spot, but;
As a result of the defendant’s wounding action, the participant was injured in such a way as to cause both a situation that endangers his life and a bone fracture, this situation can only be made the reason for moving away from the lower limit in determining the basic penalty, without considering that the defendant will only be responsible for an act of wounding that will cause a situation that endangers his life, which is the most severe consequence, after the application according to articles 86/1, 87/1-d-last of the TCK 87/3.As a result of the defendant’s wounding action, the participant was injured in such a way as to cause both a situation that endangers his life and a bone fracture, this situation can only be made the reason for moving away from the lower limit in determining the basic penalty, without considering that the defendant will only be responsible for an act of wounding that will cause a situation that endangers his life, which is the most severe consequence, after the application according to articles 86/1, 87/1-d-last of the TCK 87/3. Excessive punishment is assigned to the defendant by increasing the penalty in accordance with Article ,
Although it is fixed by the doctor’s report and the defendant’s confession in accordance with the participant’s statement that the defendant performed his action with a stool that counts as a weapon, incomplete determination of punishment by not applying the last articles 86/3-e and 87/1-of the TCK about the defendant Although it is fixed by the doctor’s report and the defendant’s confession in accordance with the participant’s statement that the defendant performed his action with a stool that counts as a weapon, incomplete determination of punishment by not applying the last articlAlthough it is fixed by the doctor’s report and the defendant’s confession in accordance with the participant’s statement that the defendant performed his action with a stool that counts as a weapon, incomplete determination of punishment by not applying the last articles 86/3-e and 87/1-of the TCK about the defendant,
With the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 24.11.2015 and numbered 29542 and numbered 08.10.2015 and numbered 2014/140 esas-2015/85 decision, which entered into force through publication in the Official Gazette numbered53 of the Turkish Penal Code numbered 5237. there is an obligation to re-evaluate the legal status of the accused in terms of deprivation of rights due to the cancellation of some provisions in the article,
Since the defendant’s appeals were considered on the spot in this respect, the judgment required to be overturned, for these reasons, 33 of Law No. 6723. article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320 as amended.ince the defendant’s appeals were considered on the spot ince the defendant’s appeals were considered on the spot in this respect, the judgment required to be overturned, for these reasons, 33 of Law No. 6723. article 8
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.