TC
SUPREME
CRIMINAL CHAMBER
E. 2016/1417
K. 2017/6429
T. 19.9.2017
IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS A NO PASSING ZONE DESPITE THE SOLID LINE AND THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED AN ACCIDENT BY PASSING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HIM DESPITE THE NO PASSING SIGN. (While it should have been ruled that the defendant committed the act consciously and deliberately, applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, it was accepted that the act was committed in a simple manner and was a criminal mistake)
TAXI KILLING (Despite the solid line and the no overtaking sign, witness statements show that overtaking was prohibited and that overtaking the vehicle in front caused the accident. Furthermore, it is clear from the case file that the defendant confessed to committing the act consciously with the taxi and that a ruling should be made by applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. While a ruling should have been made by applying Article 22/3, it is not correct to determine an inadequate sentence for the defendant by accepting that the act was committed in a simple manner and as a criminal offense.
CONSCIOUS TAXI (Despite the solid line and the no overtaking sign, witness statements that the defendant caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him, despite the no overtaking rule, and the acceptance that the defendant committed the act with conscious taxi, are established throughout the file, regarding the Turkish Penal Code. Article 22/3 should have been applied to establish the judgment, but it is not correct to determine the defendant’s sentence insufficiently by accepting that the act was committed in a simple manner and with criminal error.)
5237/m.22/3,62 summary:
Despite the signs and overtaking maneuvers, crossing the solid lane line, overtaking the vehicle in front, considering all witness statements that the defendant’s action was within the scope of the case file, a ruling should have been made by applying Article 22/3 of the Turkish Criminal Code on negligent acts. it is erroneous to accept that the act was committed in simple installments and to determine an insufficient sentence for the defendant by making a criminal error.
CASE: The decision regarding the defendant’s conviction for manslaughter by taxi has been appealed by the defendant’s defense counsel and representatives, and the case file has been reviewed and examined as necessary:
DECISION: As a result of the trial, the evidence gathered and presented in the decision, the opinion and discretion of the court based on the results of the prosecution, the scope of the case file examined, the fact that the defendant’s defense was not established, the incomplete investigation of the crime, the examination of the fault, the amount of the penalty, the amount of the penalty imposed on the participants, the amount of the penalty, the non-application of Article 62 of the Turkish Criminal Code to the defendant, and the long-term revocation of the driver’s license,
However;
On October 16, 2013, at 6:20 p.m., the defendant, outside the driver’s compartment, on a 7-meter-wide, unlit, two-way, curved, flat, and dry road, while traveling on the asphalt road in the opposite direction of the driving lane, collided with the front of the vehicle as a result of the bus in front of the driver’s compartment entering the front of the vehicle, causing the death of the driver and others as a result of the collision of the vehicle’s steering and other parts.
injury to more than one person; Despite the cause of the accident, overtaking signs and solid lane lines, overtaking the vehicle in front, the entire scope of the case file, the defendant’s actions, and the application of Article 22/3 of the Turkish Criminal Code, the ruling should have been based on the acceptance that the act was committed in simple installments and the determination of an inadequate sentence for the defendant by constructing a criminal delusion.
CONCLUSION: Considering that it is contrary to the law and that the objections of the participating deputies are currently valid, for these reasons, it was unanimously decided on 19.09.2017 that the provision of Article 8 of Law No. 5320 should be annulled in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which is currently in force.