4-238 B. /367 D. Decision of 22.10.2002
Summary: those who have taken effective action against each other and as indicated in the doctor’s reports
apart from the conflicting accounts of the injured defendants, which of the first unfair attacks was carried out and which of the fights
when I start to precise who not detected in a format that is clear.
(765 P. K. m. 51, 59, 456, 457)
Case: Mehmet Ali’s 456/2, 457/1, 59. in accordance with articles
Elazig 2. 7.11.2000 days and 286-587 by the Criminal Court of First Instance
after the verdict was appealed by the defendant, the Court of Cassation, which examined the case 4. Punishment
Apartment with 24.04.2001 days and 3796-4780 numbers;
According to the defendant’s defense, which cannot be proven otherwise, in order to water the animals of the complaining Mehmetin
the application of the provisions of unfair cursing for the benefit of the accused by cutting off the water of the field
decision without weighing whether to require
has been given.
The Local Court, on the other hand, with 18.9.2001 days and 369-443 numbers; as is known, reducing the legal and general penalty
incitement, under the influence of rage or violent action caused by an unfair act of the perpetrator
it is defined as a crime. Tcynin 51. the wrath of the verb
or the fact that the justified action is committed under the influence of depression and fever, and this is caused by unfair incitement
is required.
However, in our concrete event, which is determined to be carried out as stated above, the accused is angry or justified
it cannot be said that his action was influenced by depression and fever. Because there is no claim and all
in the light of the narratives, the water from the ark, which the defendant used to water the land, was used by the other defendant
it’s not fixed that it was cut. When the defendant sees the other defendant with the herd of animals, the other defendant
he screamed without any influence, screamed and asked him to take his herd, again we are accused
even after his defense in our court said what the other defendant was doing, the trial and
he carried out effective action with the subject of the verdict. In other words, the other accused Mehmet of water
the defendant does not yet know that he was cut. Response and reaction to a shouting scolding
beyond saying what you are doing in your nature, there is a question of swearing and insulting him
is not.
In this case, the application of incitement provisions in favor of the accused was not considered possible, and in fact, the previous one
Section 5 of the evidence and evaluation of the provision. both defendants in the incident
a motive and determination has been made that there is no legal reason for incitement. grounds
he resisted the previous sentence.
This decision was also appealed by the defendant on file, Supreme Court C. Corruption of the Attorney General
12.7.2002 sent to the first president with a daily notification of the willingness of the General Assembly of punishment
read, discussed and considered the need:
Decision: in a concrete case where it was decided that the defendant should be punished for effective action, with a special apartment
non-compliance between the Local Court, the application of the provisions of decisiveness against the accused
it is collected at the point of determination that it cannot be implemented.
According to the contents of the reviewed file;
In the crime scene determination minutes held on 21.5.2000; K. Village headman salute by phone
water found in the upper part of the village was examined at the scene after reports of a fight.
the accused Mehmet Ali, who watered his garden by transporting the water from his spring through the soil channel
the discussion between Mehmet, who wanted to buy water from the same place, turned into a fight, accused Mehmet Dec.
Mehmet’s , who was injured as a result of hitting Ali with a shovel, was taken to hospital, the accused Mehmet
Ali was found at the scene with a press wound, and the shovel used in the incident was confiscated
the minutes were also signed by Selami, the village headman, and Mehmet Ali, the accused. Which had been done
as a result of the preparatory investigation, the accused took effective action against Mehmet Ali and Mehmet
a public lawsuit has been filed to punish them for their alleged involvement.
Defendant Mehmet Ali in a statement obtained by law enforcement; the garden located in the east of his house in the morning
at 10.30 am, while watering, Mehmetin from the same village, a herd of animals to the pasture located on the upper side
when he asked this person why he was doing this, he would water his animals.
he said that when he asked him not to use the water channel, he responded with an expletive and a shepherd’s stick found in his hand
he hit her in the head with a shovel, and she confronted him with a shovel, and they hit each other.,
he then declared that his nephew Octay had come and separated, that Mehmet had previously fed him animosity, that he was a complainant.
In the trial, Mehmet turned the water when he realized that the water had been cut off while watering his garden on the day of the incident
when you saw that you were there, why did you cut the water, let me water my garden, and then you said You should cut it?
a person, what are you talking about? he said he hit him with a stick in his hand, a pistol in his waist
he tried to put a bullet in his mouth by removing the shovel to prevent it and drop the gun in his hand
he threw it, didn’t know where it came from, his son took the gun that fell to the ground and ran away with the other defendant.
he said that they continued to bogus, that the accused Mehmetin told him that he was just babbling,
he said he did not say anything other than that, recalling a law enforcement statement when asked about the reason for the conflict,
he said his testimony in court was true, and that there had been no previous discussions and quarrels between them Dec.
not told him.
About the defendant to Mehmet Ali simple effective action for the conviction decision is final
on the morning of the incident, Mehmet complained, in his essence consistent way, to pasture to graze his animals
that you’re gone, that the accused Mehmet Alin drove the cattle out of here, that you’re hurting me,
that there was no water discussion between them, that there was a bag of salt to give to the animals, a shepherd’s stick decked out
he did not carry it, and the accused Mehmet Ali had a shovel in his hand to protect himself when he hit him in the head
the accused said he was wounded in the arm when he raised his arm and tried to escape before being hit
Mehmet Ali’s nephew said that Octay held him, that he never hit the other defendant, the first
he stated that he had renounced his complaint after the provision was established.
Witnesses, who are relatives of the parties, have a habitual knowledge of the leader and Mary at the time of the incident
it is understood that there are not.
When the doctor’s reports of the accused complain are examined; Elazig State Hospital about Mehmet
6.6.2000 report organized by orthopedics expert; left elbow operated due to open fracture
it was stated that he would not be life-threatening and would remain out of work and power for 45 days and would recover in 90 days.
About Mehmet Ali, 4.7.2000 days organized by the Elazig Forensic Medical Institution
in the report; about the reports previously organized by health Ocagi and the State Hospital
2×1 cm in the left parietal region, which was caused by blunt trauma to the head.liquid fog and
in the middle is described an irregular incision with bleeding edges, any altar dimag land, on the headstone
it has been reported that the fracture, large vascular nerve, internal organ lesion is not described, the failure does not endanger his life, it will interfere with his work and strength for 7 days. When all this information and documents are considered and evaluated together Dec.;
Those who took effective action against each other and were injured as indicated in the doctor’s reports
apart from the conflicting accounts of the defendants, which was the first unfair attack and who was the fight
it is clear that it has not been definitively determined. Gotta Punishment Of The General Assembly Of
the first is unfair, as is accepted in the settled and continuous land of private apartments.
the benefit of the defendant from this situation, which remains doubtful as it cannot be determined who the movement originated from
it should be accepted that he has carried out effective action under mild unfair incitement. Then local
unfair incitement against accused Mehmet Ali on grounds that do not correspond to the scope of the court’s file
the decision that there is no place for the implementation of its provisions is not accurate.
In this respect, the Local Court must decide on the violation of the resistance provision.
Conclusion: for the reasons described, the Local Court has broken the resistance provision, instead of the file
sent to the Supreme Court C. Attorney General’S office , 22.10.2002 day notification request
it was decided by unanimous decision as appropriate.
