02.05.2026 19:57
The justification for the 17-year prison sentence given to Nevzat Bahtiyar for the crime of 'aiding the intentional killing of a child with qualified circumstances' in the Narin Güran murder case in Diyarbakır was announced. In the reasoned decision, it was stated that the defendant's act was deemed proven and the sentence imposed was appropriate.
The lifeless body of Narin Güran, who went missing in the rural Tavşantepe District of Diyarbakır's Bağlar district on August 21, 2024, was found on the 19th day of search efforts on September 8, hidden in a sack in a riverbed, covered with three stones weighing 30, 25, and 20 kilograms and concealed under bushes. In the investigation into Narin's death, a case was filed at the Diyarbakır 8th Heavy Penal Court against her uncle Salim Güran, mother Yüksel Güran, brother Enes Güran, and neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar, who was identified from security camera footage as having transported Narin's lifeless body to the river area in a red vehicle.
NEVZAT BAHTİYAR INITIALLY SENTENCED TO 4.5 YEARS IN PRISON An aggravated life imprisonment sentence was sought for uncle Salim Güran, mother Yüksel Güran, and brother Enes Güran, along with neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar, on charges of 'Intentional killing of a child as an accomplice,' as DNA and hair samples belonging to Narin were found in their vehicles. In his testimony after being taken into custody, Nevzat Bahtiyar claimed that he did not kill Narin but only transported and concealed her lifeless body in the river. During the second hearing of the case on December 28, 2024, the court sentenced Salim, Yüksel, and Enes Güran to aggravated life imprisonment for 'Intentional killing of a child as an accomplice,' and Nevzat Bahtiyar to 4.5 years in prison for 'Destroying, concealing, or altering crime evidence.'
APPEALS COURT UPHELD SENTENCES BY MAJORITY VOTE Lawyers for the detained defendants, lawyers for father Arif Güran, the Ministry of Family and Social Services, and the Diyarbakır Bar Association appealed the decision. The file, sent by the Diyarbakır 8th Heavy Penal Court to the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeals, was decided on May 26, 2025. The chamber upheld the prison sentences imposed on all four defendants by a majority vote. The court president, however, filed a dissenting opinion, stating that camera recordings, base station reports, DNA findings, PSA, and hair samples were not thoroughly examined. The president emphasized that the assumption that the mother, brother, and uncle had collectively committed the murder in a short time was contrary to the ordinary course of life, stressed that Nevzat Bahtiyar's actions in particular needed to be clarified through detailed image analysis, and noted that the evidence was evaluated inadequately from a scientific perspective. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation, in its opinion, stated that the aggravated life imprisonment for defendants Salim, Yüksel, and Enes Güran and the prison sentence for Nevzat Bahtiyar were lawful and requested the affirmation of the decision. The file was then sent to the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED BAHTİYAR'S SENTENCE The 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, on December 29, 2025, upheld the aggravated life imprisonment sentences for defendants Salim Güran, Yüksel Güran, and Enes Güran. Regarding defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, it determined that his actions should be assessed under 'Aiding qualified intentional killing' and unanimously overturned the 4-year-6-month prison sentence for 'Destroying, concealing, or altering crime evidence.'
BAHTİYAR SENTENCED TO 17 YEARS IN PRISON Nevzat Bahtiyar was sentenced to 17 years in prison without discretionary reduction at a hearing on April 16 at the Diyarbakır 8th Heavy Penal Court for 'Aiding in the qualified intentional killing of a child.'
REASONED DECISION ANNOUNCED The court announced the reasoning behind its decision. The reasoned decision noted that defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar gave partially contradictory statements in the earlier and later stages of the trial. It was recorded that in Bahtiyar's defense, he stated that on the day of the incident, around 15:08, he called Salim Güran about a water issue, after which Salim Güran called him from the top of the area where Arif Güran's residence was located, they entered Arif Güran's house together, he saw no one else in the house except Salim Güran, and Salim Güran showed him Narin's lifeless body. The defendant further explained that Salim Güran threatened him with a gun, saying he would kill his son and harm his family, after which he wrapped Narin's lifeless body in a blanket, took it out of the house, brought it to his own barn, placed it in a sack, and later transported it to the Eğertutmaz Stream and left it there. It was noted that the only consistent defense of defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar before and after the reversal decision was that he did not kill the victim Narin, but that defendant Salim killed her and gave him the lifeless body. The decision stated that when considering the PTS records from the day of the incident, expert reports on the narrowed base station data, the supporting HTS analysis report prepared by the gendarmerie, reports from the National Criminal Bureau, the content of the report on the farm camera footage belonging to Mehmet Sait Tek, and the entire file content as a whole, the court did not accept the defendant's statements and defenses claiming he was not at the crime scene. Accordingly, it was concluded that the defendant participated in the act of killing the victim by being present with defendant Salim, strengthening the decision to commit the crime before and during the act, and providing assistance after the act, thus aiding the killing. Therefore, a conviction for aiding in the qualified intentional killing of the victim was established for the defendant, in line with the Court of Cassation ruling. It was further stated that the evidence collected during the trial was lawful, the defendant's actions were deemed proven, and the imposed sentence was appropriate.