Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810    Full Text (PDF)

Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon

Eylem Baş

The commission of the offense of intentional injury with a weapon is included as a secondary element requiring the aggravation of the penalty in subparagraph (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 86 of the Turkish Penal Code numbered 5237 (TCK). According to the 4th subparagraph of paragraph (f) of Article 6 of the TCK, “in the implementation of the criminal law,” it is stated that “[a]ny instrument, not having been specifically manufactured for the purpose of attack or [defense], which may be used for such purpose” will be understood as a weapon. However, it is not clear what should be understood from the aforementioned expression in subparagraph 4. In this study, the problems caused by the phrase “[a]ny instrument, not having been specifically manufactured for the purpose of attack or defense, which may be used for such purpose” will be examined in practice. Subsequently, the necessity of abolishing the 4th subparagraph and using another expression with an amendment to be made in article 6 or the subparagraph (e) of the 3rd paragraph of article 86 of the TCK will be emphasized.

DOI :10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810    Full Text (PDF)

Kasten Yaralama Suçunun Silah Olarak Kabul Edilen “Saldırı ve Savunma Amacıyla Yapılmış Olmasa Bile Fiilen Saldırı ve Savunmada Kullanılmaya Elverişli Diğer Şeyler” ile İşlenmesi

Eylem Baş

Kasten yaralama suçunun silahla işlenmesine, 5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun (TCK) 86. maddesinin 3. fıkrasının (e) bendinde, cezanın daha fazla verilmesini gerektiren nitelikli hal olarak yer verilmektedir. TCK’nın 6. maddesinin (f) bendinin 4. alt bendinde ise “saldırı ve savunma amacıyla yapılmış olmasa bile fiilen saldırı ve savunmada kullanılmaya elverişli diğer şeyler”in “ceza kanunlarının uygulamasında” silah olarak anlaşılacağı belirtilmektedir. Ancak 4. alt bentte yer alan söz konusu ifadeden neyin anlaşılması gerektiği belirli değildir. Çalışmada kasten yaralama suçunda kullanılan “saldırı ve savunma amacıyla yapılmış olmasa bile fiilen saldırı ve savunmada kullanılmaya elverişli diğer şeyler”in uygulamada ortaya çıkardığı sorunlar incelenecektir. Ardındansa 4. alt bendin yürürlükten kaldırılması ve TCK’nın 6. maddesinde ya da 86. maddesinin 3. fıkrasının (e) bendinde gerçekleştirilecek değişiklikle başka bir ifadenin kullanılmasının gerekliliği üzerinde durulacaktır.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


As an aggravating factor arising from the instrument used in the crime, the commission of the offense of intentional injury with a weapon is regulated in subparagraph (e) of the 3rd paragraph of Article 86 of the Turkish Penal Code numbered 5237 (TCK). It is undisputed that the offense of intentional injury with a weapon should be punished effectively. However, in this case, the trial of the crime is carried out ex officio. In this context, what should legally be understood as the weapon is essential.

It can be seen that the concept of weapon is defined in paragraph (f) of Article 6 of the TCK, which is titled “Definitions..” According to this paragraph, “[i]n the implementation of the criminal law the term of a weapon shall have the following meaning”: “a firearm”; “an explosive”; “all instruments produced for the purpose of [defense] or attack [that] are capable of cutting, piercing[,] or injuring”; “any instrument, not having been specifically manufactured for the purpose of attack or [defense], which may be used for such purpose”; and “a nuclear, radioactive, chemical[,] or biological substance [that] has burning, corrosive, harmful, suffocating[,] or toxic properties or is capable of causing permanent illness..” Although it is stated in the preamble of this study that the concept of “weapon” is defined such that it need not be explained separately, it should be noted that the aforementioned determination is not valid, particularly in terms of subparagraph 4 of paragraph (f) of Article 6. This is because, even if the offense of intentional injury is committed with instruments that are considered weapons within the scope of subparagraph 4, there is no uniform understanding regarding these instruments in the punishment phase. This situation can lead to unjust results, such as different punishments for different perpetrators who commit the offense of intentional injury using the same means.

In this study, the concept of “weapon,” which includes the reference in the 4th subparagraph, will be examined first. While making this examination, article 189 of the Turkish Penal Code numbered 765 (ETCK), which constitutes the basis of the complex expression in the 4th subparagraph of (f) subparagraph of the 6th article of the TCK, will also be emphasized. Subsequently, an evaluation will be performed on the cases in which the instrument used in the crime of intentional injury should be included in the scope of “any instrument, not having been specifically manufactured for attack or [defense], which may be used for such purpose.” 

Furthermore, the present study will explore whether animals, parts of the human body, or immovable objects are included in this context as well as the particular issues that can arise if the instrument used in the crime of intentional injury during the trial cannot be seized. Moreover, the relationship of the 4th subparagraph with the 3rd subparagraph will be highlighted due to the problems that it causes in practice regarding the crime of willful injury. In addition, what should be understood from the 4th subparagraph will be considered. Thus, the issue of whether the offense of intentional injury is committed with “all instruments produced for defense or attack [that] are capable of cutting, piercing[,] or injuring” or “any instrument, not having been specifically manufactured for attack or defense, which may be used for such purpose” will be addressed. All the aforementioned issues will be examined with a careful consideration of the approach of doctrine and practice. As a result, the necessity of abolishing the 4th subparagraph and using another expression with the amendment to be made in article 6 or the subparagraph (e) of the 3rd paragraph of article 86 of the TCK will be emphasized.  


PDF View

References

  • Abdullah Pulat Gözübüyük, ‘Ceza Hukukunda Silah ve Bıçak Mefhumları’ (1945) 36(11) Adalet Dergisi 11381149. google scholar
  • Abdullah Pulat Gözübüyük, ‘Silah ve Silah Sayılan Aletlere Dair Temyiz İçtihatlarının Tahlili’ (1955) (6) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 404-410. google scholar
  • Abdullah Pulat Gözübüyük, ‘Silahlara Ait Suçlar ve Cezaları Hakkında Mukayeseli Bir İnceleme’ (1949) 40(8) Adalet Dergisi 1109-1120. google scholar
  • Ali Parlar, Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi, C. I (2. Bs., Bilge Yayınevi 2015). google scholar
  • Bernhard Hardtung, Münchener Kommentar zum StGB Band 4 (4. Aufl., Der Verlag C.H.BECK 2021), StGB § 224. google scholar
  • Cumhur Şahin ve İzzet Özgenç, Türk Ceza Hukuku Gazi Külliyatı (2. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2005). google scholar
  • Dennis Bock, Strafrecht Besonderer Teil 1 (4. Aufl., Springer-Verlag 2018). google scholar
  • Detlev Sternberg Lieben, Schönke/Schröder Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar (30. Aufl., Der Verlag C.H.BECK 2019) StGB § 224. google scholar
  • Didar Özdemir Ekici, ‘Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Türk Ceza Hukukunda Silah Kavramı’, İstanbul Üniversitesi - Cerrahpaşa Adli Tıp ve Adli Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2019. google scholar
  • Doğan Soyaslan, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (12. Bs., Yetkin Yayınları 2018). google scholar
  • Durmuş Tezcan, Mustafa Ruhan Erdem ve R. Murat Önok, Ceza Özel Hukuku (19. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
  • Ejder Yılmaz, Hukuk Sözlüğü (9. Bs., Yetkin Yayınları 2005). google scholar
  • Enes Köken, Silah Kavramı ve Silah Kaçakçılığı Suçları (Açıklamalı — İçtihatlı) (1. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2020). google scholar
  • Erdener Yurtcan , Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Türk Ceza Kanunu (Genel Hükümler) Cilt I (2. Bs., Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları 2015). google scholar
  • Eric Hilgendorf, ‘Körperteile als „gefahrliche Werkzeuge”’ (2000) 112(4) ZStW 811-833. google scholar
  • Fatih Selami Mahmutoğlu ve Serra Karadeniz, Türk Ceza Kanunu Genel Hükümler Şerhi, (1. Bs., Beta Yayıncılık 2017). google scholar
  • Georg Küpper ve Rene Börner, Strafrecht Teil 1 (4. Aufl., Springer Verlag Berlin 2018). google scholar
  • Gökhan Taneri ve Gani Kamışlı, Kişilere Karşı İşlenen Suçlar, (1. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2018). google scholar
  • Gürsel Yalvaç, Karşılaştırmalı — Gerekçeli İçtihatlı Türk Ceza Kanunu (1. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2008). google scholar
  • Hans Ullrich Paeffgen ve Martin Böse, Nomos KommentarKindhâuser/Neumann/Paeffgen, Strafgesetzbuch (5. Aufl., Nomos Verlag 2017) StGB § 224. google scholar
  • Hasan Sınar, Sinan Altunç, Serap Keskin Kiziroğlu, Ali Kemal Yıldız, Gülşah Bostancı Bozbayındır, Barış Erman, Fulya Eroğlu Erman, Gülşah Kurt, Köksal Bayraktar ve Pınar Memiş Kartal, Özel Ceza Hukuku Cilt II Kişilere Karşı Suçlar (1. Bs., On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2017). google scholar
  • Hasan Tahsin Gökcan ve Mustafa Artuç, Yorumlu — Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi 3. Cilt Madde 86-140, (1. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
  • İlhan Üzülmez, Vücut Dokunulmazlığına Karşı Suçlar (1. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2013). google scholar
  • İsmail Turgut Kıldan ve Togay Akdemir, ‘Kasten Yaralama Suçunda Silah Kavramının Yargıtay Kararları Doğrultusunda İncelenmesi’ (2015) 0(6) Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi 227-246. google scholar
  • Kristian Kühl, Lackner/Kühl, Strafgesetzbuch, (29. Aufl., Der Verlag C.H.BECK 2018) StGB § 224. google scholar
  • Lale Sirmen, Eşya Hukuku (1. Bs., Yetkin Yayınları 2013). google scholar
  • Mahmut Koca ve İlhan Üzülmez, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (6. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2019). google scholar
  • Mehmet Emin Artuk, Ahmet Gökcen ve A. Caner Yenidünya, Türk Ceza Kanunu Şerhi C. I, (2. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2014). google scholar
  • Mehmet Emin Artuk, Ahmet Gökcen, Mehmet Emin Alşahin ve Kerim Çakır, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (19. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
  • Mehmet Fatih İçer, Uygulamada Karşılaşılan Tereddütlü Yönleriyle Yaralama ve Öldürme Suçları (1. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2019). google scholar
  • Murat Aydın, ‘Genel Güvenliği Kasten Tehlikeye Düşürmek Suçu, Silah Kavramı ve Yargıtay Uygulaması’ (2007) (6) Terazi Aylık Hukuk Dergisi 50-59. google scholar
  • Mustafa Artuç, Kişilere Karşı Suçlar (2. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2018). google scholar
  • Mustafa Özen, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (3. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2019). google scholar
  • Mustafa Ruhan Erdem, ‘Türk Ceza Kanununda Silah’ (2003) 7(2) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1-13. google scholar
  • Nevzat Toroslu ve Haluk Toroslu, Ceza Hukuku Genel Kısım (26. Bs., Savaş Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
  • Nevzat Toroslu ve Haluk Toroslu, Ceza Hukuku Özel Kısım (11. Bs., Savaş Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
  • Nur Centel, Hamide Zafer ve Özlem Çakmut, Kişilere Karşı İşlenen Suçlar (5. Bs., Beta Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
  • Olgun Değirmenci, ‘Askerî Ceza Kanunu Uygulamasında Silah Kavramı’ (2016) (1) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 81-123. google scholar
  • Osman Yaşar, Hasan Tahsin Gökcan ve Mustafa Artuç, Yorumlu — Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu, C. I (2. Bs., Adalet Yayınevi 2014). google scholar
  • Ralf Eschelbach, Beck’sche Online-Kommentare BeckOK (50. Ed., 2021), StGB § 224. google scholar
  • Sahir Erman ve Çetin Özek, Ceza hukuku Özel Bölüm Kişilere Karşı Suçlar (TCK 448-490) (Dünya Yayıncılık 1994). google scholar
  • Salih Kocalar ve Yunus Biçen, Kasten Yaralama Suçu Örneğinde Genel Hükümler, (1. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2019). google scholar
  • Samet Can Olgaç, Kasten Yaralama Neticesinde Ölüme Neden Olma Suçu: TCK 87/4 (1. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2016). google scholar
  • Selman Dursun ve Sebastian Hoffmanns, ‘Der Waffenbegriff im deutschen und türkischen Strafrecht’ Die Entwicklung von Rechtssystemen in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verankerung: Forschungsband zum deutschen und türkischen Strafrecht und Strafprozessrecht Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung Institutspartnerschaft (2009-2013), (Nomos 2014) 193-228. google scholar
  • Sulhi Dönmezer, Kişilere ve Mala Karşı Cürümler (16. Bs., Beta Yayıncılık 2001). google scholar
  • T. C. Başbakanlık Muamelât Genel Müdürlüğü Tetkik Müdürlüğü, Sayı: 71 - 1348, “Türk Ceza Kanununun Bâzı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesine Dair Kanun Tasamı ve Adalet Komisyonu Raporu (1/555)”, 9.5.1949. google scholar
  • Timur Demirbaş, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (16. Bs., Seçkin Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
  • Türk Dil Kurumu, Türkçe Sözlük (11. Bs., Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 2011). google scholar
  • Türk Hukuk Kurumu, Türk Hukuk Lügatı (3. Bs., Başbakanlık Basımevi 1991). google scholar
  • Veli Özer Özbek, Koray Doğan ve Pınar Bacaksız, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (16. Bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021). google scholar
  • Zeki Hafızoğulları ve Muharrem Özen M, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler Kişilere Karşı Suçlar (6. Bs., US-A Yayıncılık 2017). google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Baş, E. (2022). Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 10(1), 97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


AMA

Baş E. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology. 2022;10(1):97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


ABNT

Baş, E. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, [Publisher Location], v. 10, n. 1, p. 97-151, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Baş, Eylem,. 2022. “Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 10, no. 1: 97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


Chicago: Humanities Style

Baş, Eylem,. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 10, no. 1 (Dec. 2022): 97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


Harvard: Australian Style

Baş, E 2022, 'Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon', Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97-151, viewed 9 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Baş, E. (2022) ‘Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon’, Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 10(1), pp. 97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810 (9 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Baş, Eylem,. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022, pp. 97-151. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


Vancouver

Baş E. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology [Internet]. 9 Dec. 2022 [cited 9 Dec. 2022];10(1):97-151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810 doi: 10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810


ISNAD

Baş, Eylem. Committing the Offense of Intentional Injury with “Any Instrument, Not Having Been Specifically Manufactured for the Purpose of Attack or Defense, Which May Be Used for Such Purpose” and is Accepted as a Weapon”. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 10/1 (Dec. 2022): 97-151. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2021-1030810



TIMELINE


Submitted28.02.2022
Accepted18.04.2022
Published Online30.05.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.