12th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court
Principal Number: 2019/10106
Decision Number: 2021/3042
“Justice Text”
Court: Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime: wounding by negligence
Provision :
The sentence regarding the conviction of the accused for the crime of injury by negligence was appealed by the accused, the file was examined and the necessary was considered:
Rejection of the defendant’s unjustified appeals according to the trial, the evidence gathered and shown at the place of decision, the opinion and discretion of the court in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the scope of the file examined;
At around 20:45 on the day of the incident, he was driving at night on the 7.40 meter wide, two-way asphalt pavement road in the residential area with 0.80 promil alcohol in the vehicle under his command and administration. In the event of the accident, the accused was completely at fault in the accident, as a result of the participant …’s crashing with the motorcycle under his administration, causing the driver … to be injured in a way that could not be cured by simple medical intervention, while the passenger … In the event where it is accepted and determined that it is; Considering that according to the opinions formed by the Forensic Medicine Institute based on scientific data and the established practices of our Department, it was accepted that conscious negligence provisions should be applied, since the amount of alcohol more than 100 promil would eliminate the ability to drive safely, and in the concrete case, it was determined that the accused was alcoholic of 0.80 promil at the time of the accident. Although it differs from person to person according to medical practices, it will be necessary to accept that the alcohol rate decreases by an average of 0.15 promil every hour, and since there is a twelve-minute time difference between the breathalyzer measurement hour of the accused and the time of the accident in the accident report, the alcohol rate determined in the accused does not exceed 100 promil, it is also stated that the defendant’s alcohol rate does not exceed 100 promil. Contrary to his defense, despite the fact that he could not drive safely due to the effect of the alcohol he had taken, it was understood that there was no conscious negligence conditions, considering that there was no credible evidence reflected in the file that he was driving. With the acknowledgment that the act was committed with conscious negligence, Article 22/3 of the TCK no. 5237 on the accused. Establishing a provision in writing by applying the article,
According to the acceptance and application;
50/4 of the TCK. Although it is stated in the article that “the prison sentence convicted for negligent offenses may be long-term, can be converted into a judicial fine in the presence of other conditions, but this provision will not be applied in case of conscious negligence” failure to consider that a term imprisonment cannot be converted into a judicial fine,
Since it is against the law and the defendant’s objections are deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict is OVERFINED contrary to the request, pursuant to Article 321 of the CPC No. 1412, which is still in effect pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. It was unanimously decided on 24/03/2021 that the acquired right of the accused be reserved.
