T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2016/238
Decision: 2016/15323
Decision Date: 30.06.2016
CRIME OF INJURY – THE PROVISION ON THE DEFENDANT WAS INCREASED ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE OF THE TPC, THE RESULT WAS APPROVED BY CORRECTION OF THE PROVISION.
SUMMARY: In the judgment established about the accused, while the increase was made according to Article 86/3.e of the TCK, the resultant penalty was calculated as “2 years and 3 months imprisonment” instead of “1 year and 15 months imprisonment”. The sentence had to be corrected and approved. .
(5237 S. K. art. 53, 86) (5271 S. K. art. 221) (ANY. MAH. 08.10.2015 T. 2014/140 E. 2015/85 K.)
Case and Decision: By appealing the judgment given by the local court, by reading the document;
It has been discussed and considered:
Although some phrases in Article 53 of the TCK No. 5237 were canceled with the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 08.10.2015 and numbered 2014/140 and 2015/85, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 24.11.2015 and numbered 29542, Since this issue may be taken into account during the execution phase, no grounds for revocation have been made.
1) In the examination of the appeal objections against the verdict established for the crime of intentionally injuring the participant…
APPROVAL of the judgment in accordance with the request, with the rejection of the defendant’s objections that are not found in place, according to the trial, the evidence collected and explained at the place of decision, the belief and discretion of the court as a result of the prosecution, the reason given and the practice,
2) In the examination of the appeal objections against the verdict established for the crime of intentionally injuring the participant …;
Rejection of other objections that are not deemed appropriate;
a) In the judgment established about the accused, while increasing the sentence according to Article 86/3.e of the TCK, the resultant penalty is calculated as “2 years and 3 months imprisonment” instead of “1 year and 15 months imprisonment”.
b) Incorrect writing of the name of ..
Conclusion: It required overturning, and since the defendant’s appeals were deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict was found in Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 for this reason. According to Article 321 of the CMUK numbered 1412, in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with the request; ” is removed and the expression “1 year and 15 months” is added to its place; complainant …. complied with the crime of deliberately injuring with his doner knife, which is considered as a counter weapon, in a way that cannot be remedied with simple medical intervention; It was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 that the phrase “…
