3. Criminal Chamber
Base Number: 2016/15735
Decision Number: 2017/8207
“Islamic Text”
COURT: Criminal Court of First Instance
JURISDICTION: Acquittal
By appealing the verdict given by the local court, by reading the document;
It has been discussed and considered:
At the date of the incident, the defendant served as J.Er in the district gendarmerie command, and the complainant … was in the district gendarmerie command, Specialist J.II.Kad. At the time of the incident, the cook in charge of the district gendarmerie command’s dining hall prepared the dinner for the witness, while the victim, who was the petty officer on duty on the day of the incident, filled the bowl with tzatziki on the table and turned his back, while the accused … He said that he threw brand medicine that he had used himself, that the cook noticed while mixing the bowl, but that he thought that he was adding salt to the tzatziki pot, poured the bowl into the tzatziki pot and said to the accused that no gendarmerie officer could use a dinner plate other than the plate, that only the non-commissioned officers on duty could eat it with the bowl. When the complainant drank from the medicated cacık in question, he fell into sleepiness syndrome due to feeling sluggish, and also, according to the report dated 28/06/2013, which was received by the Izmir Forensic Medicine Institute on the blood samples of the complainant, there was 57.0 ng/ml … in the blood, which the accused could only use in his own medicine in the food bowl Even though it is clear that he committed the act of throwing a n’ on the night of the incident with the sole purpose of putting the non-commissioned officer to sleep during his watch at 03:00-06:00 on the night of the incident, and the witness saw that the cook poured the bowl into the tzatziki pot, he did not make any noise in this situation and committed the crime of intentionally injuring him. to be acquitted in writing on wrongful grounds by making mistakes at its discretion,
It required overturning, and since the appeal objections of the public prosecutor of that place were deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict was VOID as a request pursuant to Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 1412, which was in force with Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320, amended by Article 33 of the Law No. 6723, 07 It was unanimously decided on /06/2017.
