Özet
The Court of Cassation examined the decisions rendered concerning the dispute that arose between the parties due to an inheritance case. No violation of law was found in the convictions and acquittals rendered with respect to some of the offenses of insult, threat, simple assault, and damage to property; the appeals were rejected and these judgments were affirmed. However, the acquittal rendered against one defendant for the offense of insult was quashed. This was because the witness stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had insulted the complainant-defendant by saying, “Enough already, you scoundrel…”; at trial, however, the witness gave a different account. The local court rendered an acquittal without resolving the contradiction between these two statements and without explaining why it gave precedence to one statement over the other. Consequently, the Court of Cassation affirmed most of the judgments; it quashed, for inadequate reasoning, the acquittal concerning the offense of insult that had been rendered without sufficiently evaluating the contradiction between the witness statements.
Uyuşmazlık Konusu
The judgment concerning the conviction of the participating defendant ........ for the offenses of threat and insult, the conviction of the participating defendant .... for the offense of insult, and the acquittals of the participating defendants ....... for the offenses of insult and assault and of the participating defendant ...... for the offenses of damage to property and threat, having been appealed by the participating defendants .......and the public prosecutor, the file was examined and the following was considered:In the incident in which it was alleged that, during the dispute that arose among the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, the participating defendants ...... insulted and assaulted the participating defendant ....., the participating defendant ..... damaged the property of, insulted, and threatened the participating defendant ....., and the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threat, against ..... for insult, threat, and damage to property, against ..... for insult and simple assault, and against ....... for simple assault;
No error was found in the court's finding that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... committed the offenses of insult and assault, that the participating defendant ....... committed the offense of assault, and that the participating defendant ..... committed the offenses of damage to property and threat, or in the court's finding that the participating defendant ....... committed the offenses of insult and threat and that the participating defendant ...... committed the offense of insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the judgment, the court's opinion and discretion formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the contents of the file examined; the appeals of the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor being rejected, the judgments are hereby AFFIRMED,
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offense of insult;
In view of the fact that Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you scoundrel, because of you we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the witness stated that the participating defendant ...... had only tried to separate the parties, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved and it should have been properly discussed and explained which statement of the witness was given precedence and for what reason; however, rendering an acquittal in writing as stated, on the basis of insufficient reasoning,
Is contrary to law, and since the appeals of the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found to be well-founded, pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the CMUK No. 1412, which is still in force, the judgment is hereby QUASHED, by unanimous decision dated 26/01/2016.
Yargıtay Değerlendirmesi
The judgment concerning the conviction of the participating defendant ........ for the offenses of threat and insult, the conviction of the participating defendant .... for the offense of insult, and the acquittals of the participating defendants ....... for the offenses of insult and assault and of the participating defendant ...... for the offenses of damage to property and threat, having been appealed by the participating defendants .......and the public prosecutor, the file was examined and the following was considered:In the incident in which it was alleged that, during the dispute that arose among the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, the participating defendants ...... insulted and assaulted the participating defendant ....., the participating defendant ..... damaged the property of, insulted, and threatened the participating defendant ....., and the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threat, against ..... for insult, threat, and damage to property, against ..... for insult and simple assault, and against ....... for simple assault;
No error was found in the court's finding that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... committed the offenses of insult and assault, that the participating defendant ....... committed the offense of assault, and that the participating defendant ..... committed the offenses of damage to property and threat, or in the court's finding that the participating defendant ....... committed the offenses of insult and threat and that the participating defendant ...... committed the offense of insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the judgment, the court's opinion and discretion formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the contents of the file examined; the appeals of the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor being rejected, the judgments are hereby AFFIRMED,
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offense of insult;
In view of the fact that Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you scoundrel, because of you we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the witness stated that the participating defendant ...... had only tried to separate the parties, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved and it should have been properly discussed and explained which statement of the witness was given precedence and for what reason; however, rendering an acquittal in writing as stated, on the basis of insufficient reasoning,
Is contrary to law, and since the appeals of the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found to be well-founded, pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the CMUK No. 1412, which is still in force, the judgment is hereby QUASHED, by unanimous decision dated 26/01/2016.
Önemli Noktalar
The judgment concerning the conviction of the participating defendant ........ for the offenses of threat and insult, the conviction of the participating defendant .... for the offense of insult, and the acquittals of the participating defendants ....... for the offenses of insult and assault and of the participating defendant ...... for the offenses of damage to property and threat, having been appealed by the participating defendants .......and the public prosecutor, the file was examined and the following was considered:In the incident in which it was alleged that, during the dispute that arose among the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, the participating defendants ...... insulted and assaulted the participating defendant ....., the participating defendant ..... damaged the property of, insulted, and threatened the participating defendant ....., and the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threat, against ..... for insult, threat, and damage to property, against ..... for insult and simple assault, and against ....... for simple assault;
No error was found in the court's finding that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... committed the offenses of insult and assault, that the participating defendant ....... committed the offense of assault, and that the participating defendant ..... committed the offenses of damage to property and threat, or in the court's finding that the participating defendant ....... committed the offenses of insult and threat and that the participating defendant ...... committed the offense of insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the judgment, the court's opinion and discretion formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the contents of the file examined; the appeals of the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor being rejected, the judgments are hereby AFFIRMED,
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offense of insult;
In view of the fact that Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you scoundrel, because of you we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the witness stated that the participating defendant ...... had only tried to separate the parties, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved and it should have been properly discussed and explained which statement of the witness was given precedence and for what reason; however, rendering an acquittal in writing as stated, on the basis of insufficient reasoning,
Is contrary to law, and since the appeals of the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found to be well-founded, pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the CMUK No. 1412, which is still in force, the judgment is hereby QUASHED, by unanimous decision dated 26/01/2016.
Sonuç
The judgment concerning the conviction of the participating defendant ........ for the offenses of threat and insult, the conviction of the participating defendant .... for the offense of insult, and the acquittals of the participating defendants ....... for the offenses of insult and assault and of the participating defendant ...... for the offenses of damage to property and threat, having been appealed by the participating defendants .......and the public prosecutor, the file was examined and the following was considered:In the incident in which it was alleged that, during the dispute that arose among the participating defendants due to an inheritance case, the participating defendants ...... insulted and assaulted the participating defendant ....., the participating defendant ..... damaged the property of, insulted, and threatened the participating defendant ....., and the participating defendant ..... threatened and insulted the participating defendant .....;
1) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for insult and threat, against ..... for insult, threat, and damage to property, against ..... for insult and simple assault, and against ....... for simple assault;
No error was found in the court's finding that no evidence had been obtained showing that the participating defendant ...... committed the offenses of insult and assault, that the participating defendant ....... committed the offense of assault, and that the participating defendant ..... committed the offenses of damage to property and threat, or in the court's finding that the participating defendant ....... committed the offenses of insult and threat and that the participating defendant ...... committed the offense of insult.
In view of the trial conducted, the evidence collected and presented in the judgment, the court's opinion and discretion formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the contents of the file examined; the appeals of the participating defendants........ and the public prosecutor being rejected, the judgments are hereby AFFIRMED,
2) Upon examination of the judgment rendered against the participating defendant ...... for the offense of insult;
In view of the fact that Witness ...... stated during the investigation stage that the defendant had publicly insulted the participating defendant ...... by saying, "Enough already, you scoundrel, because of you we have become unable to go out into the village," whereas during the prosecution stage the witness stated that the participating defendant ...... had only tried to separate the parties, the contradiction between the witness statements should have been resolved and it should have been properly discussed and explained which statement of the witness was given precedence and for what reason; however, rendering an acquittal in writing as stated, on the basis of insufficient reasoning,
Is contrary to law, and since the appeals of the participating defendants ....... and the public prosecutor were therefore found to be well-founded, pursuant to Article 8 of Law No. 5320 and Article 321 of the CMUK No. 1412, which is still in force, the judgment is hereby QUASHED, by unanimous decision dated 26/01/2016.
Karar Metni / Aktarım
Tehdit ve hakaret suçlarından katılan sanık ........, hakaret suçundan katılan sanık .... mahkumiyetine, katılan sanıklar ....... hakaret ve yaralama, katılan sanık ...... mala zarar verme ve tehdit suçlarından beraatlerine ilişkin hüküm, katılan sanıklar .......ve Cumhuriyet savcısı tarafından temyiz edilmekle, dosya incelenerek gereği düşünüldü:Katılan sanıkların miras davası nedeniyle aralarında çıkan tartışmada katılan sanıklar ...... katılan sanık ..... karşı hakaret ve yaralama,katılan sanık ..... katılan sanık ..... karşı mala zarar verme,hakaret ve tehdit,katılan sanık ..... katılan sanık ..... tehdit ve hakaret ettiği iddia edilen olayda;
1)Katılan sanık ...... hakkında hakaret ve tehdit, ..... hakkında hakaret, tehdit ve mala zarar verme, .....hakkında hakaret ve basit yaralama ve ....... hakkında basit yaralama suçundan kurulan hükmün incelenmesinde;
Katılan sanık ...... hakaret ve yaralama,katılan sanık ....... yaralama ve katılan sanık ..... mala zarar verme ve tehdit suçlarını işlediklerine dair delil elde edilemediğine dair ve katılan sanık ....... hakaret ve tehdit,katılan sanık ...... hakaret suçlarını işlediklerine dair mahkemenin kabulünde bir isabetsizlik görülmemiştir.
Yapılan yargılamaya, toplanıp karar yerinde gösterilen delillere, mahkemenin kovuşturma sonuçlarına uygun olarak oluşan kanaat ve takdirine, incelenen dosya kapsamına göre; katılan sanıklar........ ve Cumhuriyet savcısının temyiz itirazlarının reddiyle, hükümlerin ONANMASINA,
2)Katılan sanık ...... hakaret suçundan kurulan hükmün incelenmesinde;
Tanık ......, soruşturma aşamasında sanığın, katılan sanık ...... hitaben alenen "yeter ettin şerefsiz, senin yüzünden köyün içine çıkamaz olduk" şeklinde hakaret ettiğini, kovuşturma aşamasında ise katılan sanık ...... sadece tarafları ayırmaya çalıştığını beyan etmesi karşısında tanık beyanları arasındaki çelişki giderilerek tanığın hangi beyanının hangi nedenle üstün tutulduğu yöntemince tartışılıp açıklanması gerekirken yetersiz gerekçe ile yazılı şekilde beraat kararı verilmesi,
Kanuna aykırı olup, katılan sanıklar ....... ve Cumhuriyet savcısının temyiz itirazları bu nedenle yerinde görüldüğünden 5320 sayılı Kanun'un 8. maddesi gereğince halen uygulanmakta olan 1412 sayılı CMUK'un 321. maddesi uyarınca hükmün BOZULMASINA, 26/01/2016 tarihinde oybirliğiyle karar verildi.