15.11.2026 19:11
In the Ergani district of Diyarbakır, Muhammet Mustafa Can, who caused the death of 17-year-old Muhammed Ali Kalkan, who was walking on the sidewalk, and the injury of an 11-year-old child, while drifting with a car he was driving without a license and under the influence of alcohol, was sentenced to 28 years, 4 months, and 25 days in prison. In the reasoned decision, the car was considered a "weapon," and it was stated that the camera recordings did not match the defendant's defense.
In the Ergani district of Diyarbakır, Muhammet Mustafa Can, who caused the death of Muhammed Ali Kalkan (17), who was walking on the sidewalk, and the injury of A.Ç.Ü. (11), while drifting with a car he was driving without a license and under the influence of alcohol, was sentenced to 28 years, 4 months and 25 days in prison. The court, in its reasoned judgment, considered the car a "weapon."
The incident occurred on April 14 in the Dicle Neighborhood of Ergani district. The car with plate 21 ES 141, driven by unlicensed and drunk driver Muhammet Mustafa Can, hit Muhammed Ali Kalkan and A.Ç.Ü., who were walking on the sidewalk, while he was drifting. Upon notification, medical and police teams were dispatched to the area. Kalkan, one of the injured, could not be saved despite all the doctors' interventions. After the incident, Can fled but was caught and taken into custody. Can was arrested by the court he was brought before.
At the final hearing held on October 12 at the Ergani Heavy Penal Court, Can was sentenced to a total of 28 years, 4 months and 25 days in prison: 25 years for "possible intentional killing of a child" and 2 years, 16 months and 25 days for "possible intentional injury of a child."
CAMERA FOOTAGE DID NOT MATCH THE DEFENSE
The court's reasoned judgment was announced. In the judgment, it was stated that according to the expert report in the file, the defendant was primarily at fault, while the deceased Kalkan and the injured A.Ç.Ü. had no fault.
In the defendant's defense, he said that on the day of the incident he took his brother's friend's car without permission, that he did not have a license, and that when he approached the scene, his vision suddenly went black. It was recorded that Can did not accept the accusation, claiming that a girl jumped in front of the car, that he maneuvered to avoid hitting the child, and that he was not drifting. In the judgment, which stated that the camera footage did not match the defendant's defense, it said: "In the camera examination report, it was seen that there was no person jumping onto the road and that the defendant was traveling at high speed and in a zigzag manner at the scene. Therefore, it has been understood that the defendant's statement was aimed at escaping the crime."
In the judgment, it was also stated that based on the forensic medicine acceptance that the amount of alcohol in the blood decreases by 0.15 promille per hour, it was determined that the defendant was at least 1.03 promille drunk at the time of the incident.
HE ACTED SAYING "WHATEVER HAPPENS, HAPPENS"
In the reasoned judgment, attention was drawn to the fact that the defendant drove a vehicle in daytime around a school, in a busy place where pedestrians and students were present. Stating that although the defendant foresaw that he could cause an event that could result in death, he did not take any action to prevent it, the judgment included the statements: "He carried out his act by taking the result into account and accepting it, in other words, by saying 'whatever happens, happens.'"
In the judgment, which recorded that the witnesses also described the defendant as proceeding at high speed and in a zigzag manner, it was stated that it was established that Can acted with possible intent and caused the death of Kalkan and the injury of A.Ç.Ü.
THE CAR WAS CONSIDERED A "WEAPON"
The court considered the car used in the incident as a "weapon" within the scope of Article 6/1-f of Law No. 5237 of the Turkish Penal Code. In the reasoned judgment, it was stated that the defendant carried out his act against a person who was unable to defend himself physically or mentally, using the car considered a weapon. The judgment also recorded that the right to appeal was open before the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice.