TC
Supreme
Criminal Department
Original No.: 2014/1081
Decision No:2014/3771
K. Date:8.7.2014
The accused Behçet, the deputy of the accused Tolga, the defendants on the requests of the deputy B. Sh. and s.. R.. the child N, who was dragged into crime for the crimes of intentionally injuring the victim Tolga.. T.. in the examination of the provisions established without the establishment of a verdict for the intentional murder of the victim Tolga;
Victim Tolga, who complained about all the defendants during the investigation phase, was arrested and taken to Gaziantep 17. In his statement given at the hearing on 17.08.2010 at the Criminal Court of First Instance, he changed his statement about the occurrence of the incident and declared that he was not complaining about the defendants Salman and Behçet, and the trial was continued on the rejection decision made by the Court.
At the hearing of the High Criminal Court dated 28.10.2010, the majority of people in the narrative reported that Nesrin filed a complaint about a child who committed a crime, pointing to the pressure to make changes by testifying at the same hearing, Tolga Tom’s claims of testimony about a bet, stating that he wanted to file a complaint about other suspects and the defendants of the case and participate in the consolidated file, because the defendants threatened to make changes to their statements and abandon the complaint, it is understood that an investigation into the fate of an ongoing investigation has been requested, but after the Court investigated and evaluated the allegations that Tolga,
who participated, was subjected to pressure by the defendants, changed his statement and had to give up his complaint, a decision was made on Tolga’s request to participate in a public lawsuit filed on the rights of the accused and the child involved in the crime, and after this procedural process is completed, the legal status of the defendants must be determined
, It was determined that the applications for appeal of the Tolga deputy who participated with the defendant Behçet Defendant’s attorney were valid in this regard, and the provisions of other aspects that were not examined were contrary to the opinion in the communiqué No. 321 primarily for this reason and unanimously decided on 08/07/2014.