26.07.2025 16:05
The Court of Cassation upheld the 3-year prison sentence given to the spouse who locked the door to prevent their partner from leaving the house to go shopping, for the crime of "depriving a person of their liberty."
According to the decision of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, a couple living in Antalya had a dispute during the night, which escalated into a scuffle. One of the spouses, who left the house in the morning to withdraw money and do shopping, locked the door to prevent the other from leaving the house.
THE SPOUSE LOCKED IN THE HOUSE FILED A COMPLAINT
The spouse who could not leave the house called the police, explained the situation, and requested help. With the assistance of law enforcement, the person was able to leave the house and filed a complaint against their spouse. As a result of the investigation, a case was opened against the spouse who locked the door for the crime of "deprivation of liberty."
THE DEFENDANT APPEALED THE 3-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE
The Manavgat 5th Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted the defendant spouse. Upon the appeal application, the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal 6th Criminal Chamber examined the file and determined that the alleged crime had been committed, sentencing the defendant to 3 years in prison for "deprivation of liberty."
The defendant argued that there was no intent to commit a crime and that there was insufficient evidence for conviction, thus appealing the verdict.
THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE PRISON SENTENCE
The Supreme Court's 8th Criminal Chamber, which conducted the review, found the conviction given by the appellate court to be lawful and unanimously upheld it.
In the decision, which stated that the procedures during the trial were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations, it was noted that "Since it is understood that the acceptance of the defendant having deprived the victim of their liberty as a result of unjust provocation is accurate, the defendant's appeal requests were not found to be valid, and there was no illegality in the decision made by the Regional Court of Appeal."