Minor Intentional Injury (TCK Article 86/2) – Judgment of Acquittal

The court decisions published in this section were obtained in cases in which Attorney Mert Sönmez personally acted as counsel and defense counsel.

REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE

*** COURT

CASE NO: ***

DECISION NO: ***

REASONING

UPON JOINT ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTIRE CASE FILE:

Following an argument on the date of the incident, it was alleged that the defendant struck the complainant with a car key held in the defendant’s hand, an object deemed a weapon, causing an injury treatable by simple medical intervention. This allegation was based on the complainant’s account and the finding of a laceration in the complainant’s medical report. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Istanbul Anatolian Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment dated 13/02/2026 and numbered ***, bringing a criminal action against defendant *** for ‘minor intentional injury’ against the complainant and seeking punishment under Articles 86/2, 86/3-e and 53/1 of TCK no. 5237.

In the case conducted under the simplified trial procedure, a summons containing the explanation required by CMK Article 251/2 was duly served on defendant ***, who submitted a written defense to this Court. A summons containing the same explanation was duly served on complainant ***, who submitted a statement and request to participate. *** was heard during the investigation as a person with knowledge and stated to law enforcement, in summary, that he/she owned the house where the incident described in the indictment allegedly occurred; that an arrangement had been made for defendant ***, a real-estate agent, to assist; that on the date of the incident the defendant brought a customer to the house; that the defendant called him/her and, while they were speaking, he/she heard sounds of an argument with the complainant; and that upon hearing the defendant say, ‘Will you let go of my hair, let go of my hair,’ he/she ended the call and called 112.

In the statement taken during the investigation, the defendant stated that the glasses attached to the collar of the defendant’s clothing fell at the entrance to the door; that complainant *** then grabbed the defendant by the hair and bent the defendant downward; that because this caused pain, the defendant pushed the complainant; that the defendant had no object other than an appointment book and telephone; that personal belongings fell during the scuffle and the defendant noticed this only after arriving at the police station; that the defendant did not assault the complainant; and that it was complainant *** who assaulted the defendant.

The defendant’s forensic examination report and the final report issued by Sancaktepe Martyr Prof. Dr. *** Training and Research Hospital recorded tenderness in the right elbow, an abrasion on the inner right arm, a hyperemic area on the inner right hand, and four parallel hyperemic areas with pale centers on the outer left forearm. The complainant’s final report and forensic examination report from the same hospital recorded edema and ecchymosis in the left frontal region and a laceration to the left of the nasal bridge.

Having assessed the allegation, forensic examination reports, final reports, the account of the person with knowledge, the defendant’s defenses, the complainant’s statements and the entire case file, the Court considered the defendant’s defense that the complainant grabbed the defendant by the hair and bent the defendant downward, and that the defendant pushed the complainant because this caused pain, together with the witness’s statement that he/she called the police after hearing the defendant cry, ‘Let go of my hair.’ In light of this supporting account, the Court formed the conscientious conviction that the file contained no concrete and convincing evidence, beyond all doubt, capable of disproving the defendant’s defense that the defendant acted to ward off complainant *** and did not act with intent to injure. Although a criminal action was brought seeking punishment for minor intentional injury, it was not established that the defendant committed the charged offense. The defendant was therefore acquitted pursuant to CMK Article 223/2-e, and judgment was rendered as follows.

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT/For the reasons set forth above:

1–Although a criminal action was brought seeking punishment of the defendant for minor intentional injury, since it was not established that the defendant committed the charged offense, the defendant is ACQUITTED pursuant to CMK Article 223/2-e.

2–As defendant *** was represented by counsel, the attorney’s fee of TRY 45,000 prescribed by the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff in force on the date of judgment shall be paid to the defendant from the Treasury.

3–The trial costs shall remain with the Treasury.

The decision was rendered in the absence of the parties following examination of the file without a hearing pursuant to CMK Article 251/3. Pursuant to CMK Article 252/1, as amended by Article 24 of Law no. 7188, persons entitled to challenge the judgment may file an OBJECTION within TWO WEEKS from service of the reasoned decision by submitting a petition to the Court, by making a statement to the court clerk for entry in the record, by submitting a petition through the nearest Criminal Court of First Instance, or, if convicted, through the administration of the penal institution. The objection authority is ISTANBUL ANATOLIAN 55TH CRIMINAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. If an objection is filed, pursuant to the amendment introduced into CMK Article 252/2 by Article 17 of Law no. 7499, the file will be sent to the distribution office and assigned to a Criminal Court of First Instance according to the distribution criteria; that court will open a hearing and continue the proceedings under the general provisions. If no objection is filed, the judgment will become final. 16/07/2026