T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
1. Ceza Dairesi<\/p>\n
2022\/2309 E., 2023\/2770 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ceza Dairesi
\nSU\u00c7 : Karde\u015fi kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmek
\nH\u00dcK\u00dcMLER : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddi karar\u0131<\/p>\n
San\u0131k …’in temyiz istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun (5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 291 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirlenen kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde 04.04.2022 tarihli, temyiz sebebi i\u00e7ermeyen dilek\u00e7e ile temyiz isteminde bulundu\u011fu; ancak ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 295 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz nedenlerini i\u00e7eren gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esini sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Kat\u0131lan Kurum vekili, san\u0131k … ve san\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin temyiz istemleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlere y\u00f6nelik istinaf incelemesi \u00fczerine B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar\u0131n; 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 286 nc\u0131 maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca temyiz edilebilir olduklar\u0131, 260 \u0131nc\u0131 maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz edenlerin h\u00fck\u00fcmleri temyize hak ve yetkilerinin bulundu\u011fu, 291 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz istemlerinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu, 294 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde temyiz sebeplerine yer verildi\u011fi, 298 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz istemlerinin reddini gerektirir bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme neticesinde tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
San\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme taleplerinin, 7079 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 94 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015fik 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 299 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi takd\u00eeren reddine karar verilmekle, gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. HUKUK\u00ce S\u00dcRE\u00c7
\n1. Patnos A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin, 09.07.2021 tarihli ve 2021\/54 Esas, 2021\/169 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131 ile san\u0131klar hakk\u0131nda karde\u015fi kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7undan, 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu\u2019nun (5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 82 nci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (d) bendi, 62 nci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131, 53 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131, 54 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ve 63 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca m\u00fcebbet hapis cezas\u0131 ile cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131na, hak yoksunluklar\u0131na, m\u00fcsadereye ve mahsuba karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Erzurum B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Ceza Dairesinin, 03.11.2021 tarihli ve 2021\/3091 Esas, 2021\/3362 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile san\u0131klar hakk\u0131nda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmlere y\u00f6nelik kat\u0131lan Kurum vekili ile san\u0131klar ve m\u00fcdafiilerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 280 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendi uyar\u0131nca esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. TEMY\u0130Z SEBEPLER\u0130<\/p>\n
A. Kat\u0131lan Kurum Vekilinin Temyiz Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1. Su\u00e7un tasarlanarak, t\u00f6re saiki ile i\u015flendi\u011fine,<\/p>\n
2. San\u0131klar hakk\u0131nda 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 62 nci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi takdiri indirim nedeni uygulanmak suretiyle eksik ceza tayin edildi\u011fine,<\/p>\n
3. Kat\u0131lan Kurum lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fine,
\n\u0130li\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
B. San\u0131k … M\u00fcdafiinin Temyiz Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1. San\u0131\u011f\u0131n eyleminin me\u015fru savunma kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na,<\/p>\n
2. San\u0131k hakk\u0131nda kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmde 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 29 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi haks\u0131z tahrik h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine,
\n\u0130li\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
C. San\u0131k … ve M\u00fcdafiinin Temyiz Sebebi
\nSan\u0131k …’un su\u00e7u i\u015flemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
III. OLAY VE OLGULAR<\/p>\n
Temyizin kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re;<\/p>\n
A. \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin Kabul\u00fc<\/p>\n
1. Resm\u00ee n\u00fcfus kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re karde\u015f olan san\u0131klar\u0131n k\u0131z karde\u015fleri olan maktul\u00fcn evli oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde L\u00fctf\u00fc isimli \u015fah\u0131s ile birlikte olmak istedi\u011fi, maktul\u00fcn ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 san\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmas\u0131 ve san\u0131k …’un yol paras\u0131 g\u00f6ndermesi \u00fczerine … ilinden olay g\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6nce Patnos il\u00e7esine geldi\u011fi, buradan san\u0131k … taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131narak Bulan\u0131k il\u00e7esi \u015eehittahir k\u00f6y\u00fcndeki evine getirildi\u011fi, ak\u015fam saatlerinde ba\u015fkas\u0131 ile ili\u015fki kurma meselesinden aralar\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kan tart\u0131\u015fmada san\u0131k …’in b\u0131\u00e7ak ile maktul\u00fc yaralad\u0131\u011f\u0131, di\u011fer san\u0131k …’un ka\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan maktul\u00fc tuttu\u011fu, san\u0131klar\u0131n fiil \u00fczerinde ortak hakimiyet kurduklar\u0131 ve bu \u015fekilde eylemlerinin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn halinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirerek karde\u015fi kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrme su\u00e7unu i\u015fledikleri anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, buna g\u00f6re uygulama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. San\u0131k …’in \u00fczerine at\u0131l\u0131 su\u00e7lamay\u0131 tevilli kabul etti\u011fi, san\u0131k …’un ise kolluk g\u00fc\u00e7lerince m\u00fcdafii huzuru ile al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131n\u0131 a\u015famalarda de\u011fi\u015ftirip su\u00e7lamay\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fi belirlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Olay an\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc bildiren tan\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenmekle ba\u015fka hususlarda beyanlar\u0131 al\u0131nan tan\u0131klar … ve … ile san\u0131k …’un ilk anlat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 tutanak h\u00e2linde d\u00fczenleyen tutanak tan\u0131klar\u0131 …, … ve …’nin beyanlar\u0131 tespit edilerek dava dosyas\u0131na eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Olay yeri inceleme raporu, olay yeri foto\u011fraflar\u0131 ve basit krokisi dava dosyas\u0131nda bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Kesin \u00f6l\u00fcm sebebinin tespit edildi\u011fi, 14.03.2020 tarihli otopsi tutana\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6zetle;<\/p>\n
“1) Sa\u00e7l\u0131 deri frontal b\u00f6lgede 1 cm. uzunlu\u011funda, 2) Boyun solda sol kulak kep\u00e7esinin 2 cm. alt\u0131nda 1 cm. uzunlu\u011funda, 3) S\u0131rt solda skapula \u00fcst hatta d\u0131\u015fta bir ucu dar di\u011fer ucu geni\u015f olan 1×1 cm. ebatta, 4) 3 no.lu yaran\u0131n 2 cm. i\u00e7 taraf\u0131nda 1×0,2 cm. uzunlu\u011funda, 5) Sol omuz ba\u015f\u0131ndan 5 cm. uzunlu\u011funda \u0130ineer delici-kesici alet yaras\u0131, 6) Sol \u00f6n kol d\u0131\u015fta 3×1 cm. uzunlu\u011funda cilt, cilt alt\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren delici-kesici alet yaras\u0131, ayr\u0131ca sol yanakta 1 cm., 2 cm. ve 3 cm. uzunlu\u011funda s\u0131yr\u0131klar oldu\u011fu, burun k\u00f6k\u00fcnde 1 cm. \u00e7ap\u0131nda s\u0131yr\u0131k, burun k\u00f6k\u00fc sa\u011fda 1 cm. uzunlu\u011funda s\u0131yr\u0131k, al\u0131n solda 4×1 cm.’lik alan\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6k\u00fck oldu\u011fu, \u00fcst dudak ve alt dudakta ekimoz, alt \u00e7ene solda 3 cm. uzunlu\u011funda s\u0131yr\u0131k, sa\u011f dizde 0,5 cm. s\u0131yr\u0131k” mevcut olup \u015fah\u0131sta alt\u0131 adet kesici delici alet yaras\u0131 lezyonu oldu\u011fu, bu lezyonlardan harici muayenede (2) numarada tarif edilen kesici delici alet yaras\u0131 lezyonunun tek ba\u015f\u0131na \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc nitelikte oldu\u011fu, \u015fahs\u0131n kesin \u00f6l\u00fcm sebebi kesici delici alet yaralanmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 meydana gelen b\u00fcy\u00fck damar yaralanmas\u0131 ve i\u00e7 kanama sonucu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan komplikasyonlara ba\u011fl\u0131 solunum ve dola\u015f\u0131m durmas\u0131 sonucu meydana geldi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. a) San\u0131k … hakk\u0131nda Bulan\u0131k Devlet Hastanesince 14.03.2020 tarihinde saat 03.41’de tanzim olunan; “s\u0131rt ense k\u00f6k\u00fc k\u0131sm\u0131nda 1×1 ve 5×2 cm.’lik 2 adet k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol taraf koltuk<\/p>\n
alt\u0131ndan 10 cm. a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yakla\u015f\u0131k 2×1 cm.’lik 3 adet morluk, sa\u011f klavikula alt\u0131nda 4×2 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sa\u011f klavikula \u00fcst\u00fcnde 5×3 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol koltuk alt\u0131 lineer 10×3 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol kol dirsek \u00fcst\u00fc 2 tane 1x 1, 1 tane 3×2 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol kol dirsek alt\u0131 1×1 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sa\u011f kol pazu b\u00f6lgesinde 7×5 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol dirsekte 2 tane 1×1 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sa\u011f el s\u0131rt\u0131nda 0,5×0,5 cm.’lik s\u0131yr\u0131k, sa\u011f el s\u0131rt\u0131nda 3×0,5 cm.’lik s\u0131yr\u0131k, sa\u011f el bile\u011fi d\u0131\u015f tarafta kurumu\u015f kan lekesi, sol el 3 ve 4. parmakta parmak ucunda 1×1 cm.’lik morluk, sol el 4 ve 5. parmaklarda 0,5×0,5 cm.’lik s\u0131yr\u0131k, sol el s\u0131rt\u0131nda parmak ba\u015flama noktas\u0131nda 0,5×0,5 cm.’lik s\u0131yr\u0131k, sa\u011f skapula alt\u0131nda 7×3 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol diz kapa\u011f\u0131 \u00fcst\u00fcnde 6×1 cm.’lik eski skar izi, sa\u011f diz kapa\u011f\u0131 yan alt k\u0131sm\u0131nda 0,5×0,5 cm.’lik s\u0131yr\u0131k, sol el 1, 4, 5. t\u0131rnaklarda ve t\u0131rnak aralar\u0131nda ve sa\u011f el 1, 3, 4, 5. t\u0131rnaklarda ve (..okunamad\u0131) kurumu\u015f kan lekesi ve toprak kal\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131, sa\u011f ense boyun birle\u015fiminde 5×2 cm.’lik k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, sol ense boyun birle\u015fiminde 3×0,5 cm.’lik lineer lezyon k\u0131zar\u0131kl\u0131k, lezyonlar bo\u011fu\u015fma izleri ile uyumlu olup darp cebir vard\u0131r, BTM ile giderilebilir.”
\nG\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7erir adl\u00ee muayene raporu dava dosyas\u0131na eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
b) San\u0131k … hakk\u0131nda olay tarihinde tanzim olunan adl\u00ee muayene raporunda darp ve cebir izinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. San\u0131klar\u0131n olay g\u00fcn\u00fc kendi aralar\u0131nda ve hakk\u0131nda kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verilen … aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan telefon g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmelerine ili\u015fkin HTS kay\u0131tlar\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131nda mevcuttur.<\/p>\n
8. … Jandarma Kriminal Laboratuvar Amirli\u011finin 16.04.2020 tarihli ve …-P\u0130Z-2020\/829 uzmanl\u0131k numaral\u0131 “inceleme konusu b\u0131\u00e7aklar \u00fczerinde iz bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131” belirtir uzmanl\u0131k raporu, ayn\u0131 yerden al\u0131nan 17.04.2020 tarihli …-P\u0130Z-2020\/829 uzmanl\u0131k numaral\u0131 DNA analizi raporu dava dosyas\u0131na eklenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Bulan\u0131k Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, 24.01.2021 tarihli ve 2020\/455 soru\u015fturma numaral\u0131 evrak\u0131 ile \u015f\u00fcpheliler …, …, … ve …’in \u00f6ld\u00fcrme eylemine i\u015ftiraklerini veya yard\u0131mc\u0131 olduklar\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyacak herhangi bir somut delilin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu haliyle m\u00fcsnet su\u00e7tan kovu\u015fturmaya ge\u00e7mek i\u00e7in yeterli \u015f\u00fcphe olu\u015fturacak delilin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015f\u00fcpheliler …, … ve …’in su\u00e7luyu kay\u0131rma su\u00e7undan 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 283 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan “Bu su\u00e7un \u00fcstsoy, altsoy, e\u015f, karde\u015f veya di\u011fer su\u00e7 orta\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan i\u015flenmesi halinde, cezaya h\u00fckmolunmaz.” h\u00fckm\u00fc kapsam\u0131nda haklar\u0131nda ceza verilemeyece\u011fi, bu h\u00e2liyle kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle kovu\u015fturmaya yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin Kabul\u00fc
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince kabul edilen olay ve olgularda, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
A. Kat\u0131lan Kurum Vekilinin Temyiz Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1. Su\u00e7 Vasf\u0131na Y\u00f6nelen Temyiz Sebebi<\/p>\n
a) Tasarlama
\nSan\u0131klar\u0131n maktul\u00fc \u00f6ld\u00fcrme karar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nceden verdiklerine, bu karar\u0131 verdikten sonra aradan so\u011fukkanl\u0131l\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015facak kadar makul bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7mesine ra\u011fmen \u00f6ld\u00fcrme kararlar\u0131nda sebat ettiklerine ili\u015fkin dava dosyas\u0131na yans\u0131yan bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, san\u0131klar\u0131n savunmalar\u0131ndan olay\u0131n ani bir kastla geli\u015fti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lmakla, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince san\u0131klar\u0131n eylemlerinin 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 82 nci maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (a) bendi kapsam\u0131nda kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesinde hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
b) T\u00f6re Saiki \u0130le
\nSan\u0131klar\u0131n t\u00f6re saiki ile eylemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdiklerinin kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in ilk olarak ma\u011fdurun toplumda genel olarak benimsenmi\u015f olan bir davran\u0131\u015f veya ya\u015fam bi\u00e7imine ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n, ikinci olarak bu ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcmle cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finin o toplumda ya\u015fayanlar taraf\u0131ndan beklenen bir tepki oldu\u011funun kabul edilebilmesinin, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc olarak ise \u00f6ld\u00fcrme fiilinin fail taraf\u0131ndan toplumun \u00f6ld\u00fcrme beklentisinin y\u00f6nlendirmesiyle s\u0131rf ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 g\u00f6revi \u00fcstlenilerek i\u015flenmesinin gerekti\u011fi belirlenmekle \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince san\u0131klar\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131klar\u0131 toplumun kendilerine dayatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir sebepten olmay\u0131p, kendi i\u00e7 d\u00fcnyalar\u0131ndaki namus anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 do\u011frultusunda hareket ettikleri gerek\u00e7esi ile san\u0131klar hakk\u0131nda bu nitelikli h\u00e2lin uygulanmamas\u0131nda bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden, h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. Takdiri \u0130ndirim Sebebi
\n5237 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 62 nci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca takdiri indirim sebebi uygulanmas\u0131 Mahkemenin takdirinde olup \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, san\u0131klar lehine, kovu\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131, cezan\u0131n olas\u0131 etkileri, mahkememizdeki tutum ve davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak yerinde, yeterli ve kanun\u00ee gerek\u00e7eyle takdiri indirim sebebi uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlendi\u011finden, h\u00fck\u00fcmlerde bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Vek\u00e2let \u00dccretine \u0130li\u015fkin Temyiz Sebebi
\nKarar tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi’nin 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer verilen; \u201cKamu davas\u0131na kat\u0131lma \u00fczerine, mahk\u00fbmiyete ya da h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f ise vekili bulunan kat\u0131lan lehine Tarifenin ikinci k\u0131s\u0131m ikinci b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde belirlenen avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti san\u0131\u011fa y\u00fckletilir.\u201d \u015feklindeki d\u00fczenleme kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, kendisini vekille temsil ettiren kat\u0131lan Kurum lehine vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011finin g\u00f6zetilmemesi, hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmu\u015f ise de s\u00f6z konusu hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan giderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B. San\u0131k …’in Temyiz \u0130stemi Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden
\nAyr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131, Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulunun, 10.10.2019 tarihli ve 2019\/9.MD-355 Esas, 2019\/596 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yoklu\u011funda verilen ve 04.04.2022 tarihinde us\u00fbl\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde tebli\u011f edilen karara kar\u015f\u0131, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un, 291 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirlenen kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde 04.04.2022 tarihli, temyiz sebebi i\u00e7ermeyen dilek\u00e7e ile temyiz isteminde bulundu\u011fu; ancak ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 295 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz nedenlerini i\u00e7eren gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esini sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n temyiz isteminin reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
C. San\u0131k … ve M\u00fcdafiinin Su\u00e7u \u0130\u015flemedi\u011fine \u0130li\u015fkin Temyiz Sebebi
\nSan\u0131k her ne kadar su\u00e7a i\u015ftirak etmedi\u011fini savunmu\u015fsa da, kolluk g\u00fc\u00e7lerince olay tarihinde m\u00fcdafii huzurunda al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131na g\u00f6re san\u0131k …’in b\u0131\u00e7akla maktule vurdu\u011fu, ka\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan maktul\u00fcn san\u0131k … taraf\u0131ndan yakaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu surette san\u0131klar\u0131n fikir ve eylem birli\u011fi i\u00e7erisinde hareket ettikleri ve fiil \u00fczerinde ortak hakimiyet kurduklar\u0131, su\u00e7u i\u015ftirak halinde i\u015fledikleri anla\u015f\u0131lmakla san\u0131\u011f\u0131n mahk\u00fbmiyetine karar verilmesinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden, h\u00fck\u00fcmde bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
D. San\u0131k … M\u00fcdafiinin Temyiz Sebepleri
\n1. Me\u015fru Savunma
\nSan\u0131\u011f\u0131n savunmas\u0131nda maktul\u00fcn kendisine y\u00f6nelik herhangi bir eylemi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n san\u0131\u011f\u0131n maktule b\u0131\u00e7akla vurarak ilk hareketi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmesi, Olay ve Olgular ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda (6-a) paragraf\u0131nda bilgilerine yer verilen adl\u00ee muayene raporundaki yaralanma bulgusunun maktul\u00fcn kendisine y\u00f6nelik san\u0131ktan gelen eylemi engellemeye y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011funun de\u011ferlendirilmekle san\u0131\u011f\u0131n kendisinin de a\u015famalardaki savunmalar\u0131ndan maktul ile aralar\u0131nda bo\u011fu\u015fma oldu\u011funu savundu\u011fu, somut olayda me\u015fru savunma ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, h\u00fck\u00fcmde bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. Haks\u0131z Tahrik
\nOlay ve Olgular ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda (1) numaral\u0131 paragrafta anlat\u0131lan olay\u0131n olu\u015f \u015fekline g\u00f6re san\u0131klar\u0131n \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmas\u0131 \u00fczerine maktul\u00fcn ba\u015fka \u015fehirden gelmekle geldi\u011fi g\u00fcn san\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ld\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131 san\u0131k lehine haks\u0131z tahrik h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin uygulanma ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilmekle, h\u00fck\u00fcmde bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
V. KARAR<\/p>\n
A. San\u0131k …’in Temyiz \u0130stemi Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden
\nSan\u0131\u011f\u0131n temyiz isteminin, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 298 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca, oy birli\u011fiyle REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
B. Kat\u0131lan Kurum Vekili, San\u0131k … ve San\u0131klar M\u00fcdafiilerinin Temyiz \u0130stemleri Y\u00f6n\u00fcnden
\nGerek\u00e7e b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde (A-3) paragraf\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenle kat\u0131lan Kurum vekili, san\u0131k … ve san\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin temyiz istemleri yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden Erzurum B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Ceza Dairesinin, 03.11.2021 tarihli ve 2021\/3091 Esas, 2021\/3362 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 302 nci maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi BOZULMASINA, bu husus yeniden yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 gerektirmedi\u011finden ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 303 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n (h) bendi gere\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda yer alan yarg\u0131lama giderlerine ili\u015fkin paragrafa; \u201cKat\u0131lan Kurum kendisini vekille temsil ettirdi\u011finden, karar tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesinin 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca 8.200,00 TL maktu vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin san\u0131klardan tahsili ile kat\u0131lan Kurum’a verilmesine,\u201d ibaresinin eklenmesi suretiyle, Tebli\u011fname\u2019ye uygun olarak, oy birli\u011fiyle, TEMY\u0130Z \u0130STEMLER\u0130N\u0130N ESASTAN REDD\u0130 \u0130LE H\u00dcK\u00dcMLER\u0130N D\u00dcZELT\u0130LEREK ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H\u00fckmolunan ceza miktar\u0131 ve tutuklulukta ge\u00e7irilen s\u00fcre dikkate al\u0131narak san\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin tahliye taleplerinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
Dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 304 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca Patnos A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine, Yarg\u0131tay il\u00e2m\u0131n\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin ise Erzurum B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Ceza Dairesine g\u00f6nderilmek \u00fczere Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na TEVD\u0130\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
08.05.2023 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi\u2019nin 08. 05. 2023 tarihli, 2022\/2309 esas ve 2023\/2770 karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 1. Ceza Dairesi 2022\/2309 E., 2023\/2770 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ceza Dairesi SU\u00c7 : Karde\u015fi kasten \u00f6ld\u00fcrmek H\u00dcK\u00dcMLER : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddi karar\u0131 San\u0131k …’in temyiz istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun (5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 291 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda belirlenen kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde 04.04.2022 tarihli, temyiz sebebi i\u00e7ermeyen dilek\u00e7e ile temyiz isteminde bulundu\u011fu; ancak ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 295 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck kanun\u00ee s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz nedenlerini i\u00e7eren gerek\u00e7eli temyiz dilek\u00e7esini sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kat\u0131lan Kurum vekili, san\u0131k … ve san\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin temyiz istemleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen h\u00fck\u00fcmlere y\u00f6nelik istinaf incelemesi \u00fczerine B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen kararlar\u0131n; 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 286 nc\u0131 maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca temyiz edilebilir olduklar\u0131, 260 \u0131nc\u0131 maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz edenlerin h\u00fck\u00fcmleri temyize hak ve yetkilerinin bulundu\u011fu, 291 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz istemlerinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu, 294 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz dilek\u00e7elerinde temyiz sebeplerine yer verildi\u011fi, 298 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi temyiz istemlerinin reddini gerektirir bir durumun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme neticesinde tespit edilmi\u015ftir. San\u0131klar m\u00fcdafiilerinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 inceleme taleplerinin, 7079 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 94 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesiyle de\u011fi\u015fik 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 299 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fi takd\u00eeren reddine karar verilmekle, gere\u011fi …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n