New development in Narin murder

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the prosecutor's office requested that the court decision regarding Bahtiyar be overturned on the grounds that it was against procedure and law, and that Bahtihar be sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.

Narin's mother Yüksel Güran, her uncle Salim Güran and her older brother Enes Güran, who were tried at the Diyarbakır 8th High Criminal Court regarding the murder of 8-year-old Narin Güran, whose body was found in the Eğertutmaz Stream 19 days after she went missing on August 21 in the rural Tavşantepe Neighborhood of the Bağlar district, were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of "intentional murder of a child in participation", while their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar , who carried Narin's lifeless body to the stream where it was found, was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison.

On May 20, the prison sentences given by the 8th High Criminal Court to mother Yüksel, elder brother Enes and uncle Salim and their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar by the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice were deemed lawful by a majority vote. In the decision, the presiding judge also listed his reasons and added an annotation to the decision.

Following the decision, the prosecutor of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice appealed to the Court of Cassation regarding the sentence given to Nevzat Bahtiyar. In his appeal, the prosecutor stated that while Bahtiyar should have been sentenced for the crime of 'Deliberately Killing a Child in Participation', giving a sentence for the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing or Altering Evidence of a Crime' with an inappropriate justification was against procedure and law.

"IT IS CLEAR THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN THE ACT OF NARİN'S MURDER"

In his appeal to the Court of Cassation Criminal Chamber, the prosecutor stated that Bahtiyar gave contradictory statements in order to escape the charges he was accused of. The prosecutor included the following statements in his application:

*When the actions, statements and behaviors of the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar before and after the incident are evaluated as a whole, it is clear that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar participated in the act of killing the victim Narin by acting in unity of thought and action with the other defendants from the very beginning. Apart from all these explanations, according to the partial acceptance; according to the established Court of Cassation precedents and doctrine, participation in an action can be realized at the latest at the time the action is carried out (while the enforcement actions are ongoing).

*Even if it is accepted for a moment that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar came to the scene of the incident without being aware of the act committed against the victim Narin (which our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office is of the opposite opinion as stated above), the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar stated that 'After arriving at the scene of the incident, the victim Narin, who was lying motionless on the ground, had foamy water coming from her mouth',

* It is not possible for a deceased person to continue to have foamy water coming out of their mouth since their respiratory and circulatory systems will stop, because the foam that forms in the lungs can only occur as a result of the air taken in as a result of active respiratory movements, the fluid that escapes/enters the lungs from outside, or the fluid that forms as a result of bleeding in the lungs due to being left/remaining without air, etc. (it is established by the ATK report that in the specific incident, the deceased lost his life as a result of the closing of the mouth and nose area or the pressure being applied to the throat area, thus depriving him of air),

*The fact that the victim continues to foam at the mouth is a strong indication that the body is reflexively trying to expel the negativity that has somehow occurred in the lungs in the struggle for life. This also indicates that when the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar arrived at the scene of the incident, the victim Narin was still struggling to survive and was trying to hold on to life. Despite this, the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar 'did not make any effort to prevent the death of the victim who was struggling to survive, and did not notify the law enforcement or the medical teams.' On the contrary, due to the close friendship between him and the defendant Salim, he tried to prevent the incident from being revealed by putting the body of the victim Narin in a sack in the stream without questioning and by keeping silent until the body was found. In addition, it was understood that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar caused the destruction of evidence by causing the body to remain in the water of the stream for a long time. For this reason, he should be considered as a joint perpetrator.

"THE COURT DECISION IS CONTRARY TO PROCEDURE AND LAW"

In his application to the Supreme Court, the prosecutor stated that Nevzat Bahtiyar should be punished for the crime of "deliberately killing a child in the event of participation" and noted the following:

*It has been determined that the opinion on the merits requested that he be punished for this crime, that there was no expression in the indictment regarding the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing or Altering Criminal Evidence', that this procedural deficiency that occurred could not be overcome by giving an additional defense (moreover, no additional defense was given by the first instance court and this issue was not cited as a reason for reversal by the appeal court), therefore, a new indictment and a public lawsuit should have been filed against the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar on the grounds that he committed the 'Crime of Destroying, Concealing or Altering Criminal Evidence' and that a verdict should have been rendered by combining it with this file, but this procedural deficiency was ignored. In the short decision at the hearing where the verdict was announced, it was observed that no decision was given regarding the item/items registered in judicial custody and that the contradiction between the short decision and the reasoned decision was not taken into consideration.

*For the reasons explained above, it should have been decided that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar should have been sentenced for committing the crime of 'Deliberately Killing a Child in Participation', however, it has been understood that it is against the procedure and law to decide that he should be sentenced for committing the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing or Altering Evidence of Crime' with an inappropriate justification. It is requested and submitted on behalf of the public that the decision in question be reviewed and overturned against the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, considering that it is not in accordance with the procedure and law.

Odatv.com