Criminal Division
Case Number: 2016/15735
Decision Number: 2017/8207
“Text of Justice”
COURT: First Instance Criminal Court
JURISDICTION: Acquittal
By appealing the decision of the local court and reading the document,
the following issues were discussed and evaluated:
On the date of the incident, the defendant was serving as a Sergeant Major at the regional gendarmerie headquarters, and the complainant… was serving as a Specialist Sergeant Major at the regional gendarmerie headquarters. At the time of the incident, the cook responsible for the regional gendarmerie command’s mess hall was preparing dinner for the witness… while the victim…, who was the non-commissioned officer on duty that day, filled a bowl on the table with tzatziki and turned away.
The defendant… stated that he threw away the brand of medicine he used, that the cook noticed while stirring the bowl, but thinking that salt had been added to the tzatziki pot, he emptied the bowl into the tzatziki pot and told the defendant that no gendarmerie officer could use any other plate but this one, and that only the non-commissioned officers on duty could eat from this bowl. When the complainant drank the tzatziki containing the medication, he experienced drowsiness due to weakness, and according to the report dated 28/06/2013 received by the Izmir Institute of Forensic Medicine regarding the complainant’s blood samples, 57.0 ng/ml … was detected in his blood, which could only have come from the medication the defendant added to his own food container.
It is clear that the defendant added the drug to the food container to put the sergeant, who was on duty between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the night of the incident, to sleep, that the witness saw the cook pour the bowl into the tzatziki pot, that he did not make a sound, and that he committed the crime of intentional injury, yet the defendant was acquitted instead of being convicted. His acquittal in writing, based on unjust and arbitrary errors, required the reversal of this decision was overturned, and in this context, the prosecutor’s objections were deemed appropriate. Upon request made in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, the decision, which was in force together with Article 8/1 of Law No. 8/1, was unanimously overturned on 06/2017.