28.05.2026 15:51
In Ankara, the appeals court issued a notable ruling regarding teacher A.Ö., who was sentenced to 38 years in prison for sexual abuse against five male students. The court acquitted the defendant regarding four victims, while reducing the sentence to 3 years and 9 months for one victim, ordering the defendant's release.
The court of appeals overturned the local court's decision regarding teacher A.Ö., who was sentenced to 38 years in prison by the local court on charges of sexual abuse against his students, acquitting him for four victims and sentencing him to 3 years and 9 months in prison with discretionary reduction for the crime of "sexual harassment of a child at the level of molestation" for one victim. Considering the time spent in detention, the court of appeals ordered the defendant's release.
Ankara 12th Heavy Penal Court had sentenced 65-year-old technology design teacher A.Ö., who worked at a middle school in Ankara, to a total of 38 years in prison following a trial opened on charges of sexual abuse against 5 male students, and the decision was later appealed to the court of appeals.
Ankara Regional Court of Justice 17th Criminal Chamber overturned the local court's conviction decision dated November 18, 2025.
During the hearing held on May 20 as part of the appeal review, the public prosecutor presented their opinion on the merits of the case. The prosecutor stated that sufficient, conclusive, and convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt could not be obtained to punish the defendant for four victims and requested an acquittal. For one victim, the prosecutor deemed that the defendant's action constituted the crime of "sexual harassment of a child at the level of molestation" and requested conviction and release.
ACQUITTAL FOR FOUR VICTIMS, CONVICTION FOR ONE VICTIM
In the court of appeals' decision, it was assessed that the victims' statements were contradictory in some aspects, the narratives remained superficial, some allegations were expanded in later stages of the case, and "conclusive and convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt" could not be obtained regarding the occurrence of the alleged acts.
The court made a different assessment for one victim. The chamber noted that the allegation that the defendant laid the victim on his lap and kissed him on the lip, and that the expressions used revealed sexual intent, was supported by witness testimony, and it was ruled that the defendant's action constituted the crime of "sexual harassment of a child at the level of molestation" due to its short duration.
DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION AND RELEASE
With this assessment, the court of appeals first imposed a 3-year prison sentence on the defendant under Article 103/1-2 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). As the crime was committed in the capacity of a teacher and against a victim under educational and instructional obligation, the sentence was increased by half under Article 103/3-d of the TCK to 4 years and 6 months. Then, a discretionary reduction was applied under Article 62 of the TCK, reducing the sentence to 3 years and 9 months. It was decided that the provisions for consecutive crimes were not applicable.
Considering the acquittal decisions and the amount of the imposed sentence, the court ordered the release of A.Ö. based on the time he had spent in detention.
The decision of Ankara Regional Court of Justice 17th Criminal Chamber is open to appeal before the Court of Cassation.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On February 17, 2025, at a middle school in Ankara, 7th grade students told their English teacher about the disturbing physical contacts of technology design teacher A.Ö. towards them. Following the school administration's report to law enforcement, an investigation was launched, and A.Ö. was arrested on February 25, 2025. The statements of the victim children were taken at the Child Monitoring Center (ÇİM) with the assistance of experts.
ALLEGATION OF "CONTACT WITH PRIVATE AREAS"
Messages and screenshots from a WhatsApp group established by the victim children and their classmates, where they described the teacher's harassment towards them, were added to the case file as evidence. Other students, heard as witnesses, also stated that the suspect engaged in such acts, particularly against male students. According to the ÇİM statements included in the indictment, the students described that the teacher hugged them during technology design classes, kissed their cheeks and lip corners, and in some cases touched their private areas.
DEFENSE OF "FATHERLY AFFECTION" FROM THE ACCUSED TEACHER
In his defense, the suspect teacher A.Ö. denied the allegations, claiming that he approached his students only with "fatherly affection" and certainly had no sexual intent. However, the prepared indictment emphasized that the victims' statements, witness testimonies, and WhatsApp conversations were consistent with each other. The indictment alleged that the teacher established physical closeness especially towards male students, and that the behaviors of hugging and kissing intensified over time.
"CONSECUTIVE" PUNISHMENT FOR FOUR CHILDREN
The prosecutor's office requested that the detained A.Ö. be punished for "consecutive sexual abuse of a child" for his actions against 4 students, and for "sexual abuse of a child" for his actions against one student. In the trial held at Ankara 12th Heavy Penal Court, the court found the defendant A.Ö.'s defenses as "aimed at avoiding conviction" and based its judgment on the statements of the victim children and witness students.
The court ruled that the defendant committed his actions by "abusing the influence provided by his educational and instructional obligation" and decided to punish him separately for each victim child. Due to the repeated occurrence of the actions against four victim children, the court increased the sentence under "consecutive crimes."
Defendant A.Ö. was sentenced to a total of 38 years and 2 months in prison. The rationale of the decision stated that the consistent statements of the victims, natural conversations in the WhatsApp group, and testimonies of other students proved beyond any doubt that the crime was committed with sexual intent.
During the appeal hearing, the defendant did not accept the allegations and repeated his defense that he approached his students only with "fatherly affection."