24.02.2026 15:37
The appeal made by the Ministry of Family and Social Services regarding the sentence given to Serkan Dindar (46), who killed Ceyda Yüksel (21) in İzmir, with a reduction for 'unjust provocation' that was also upheld by the Court of Cassation, has been rejected.
The objection made by the Ministry of Family and Social Services regarding the sentence given to Serkan Dindar (46), who killed Ceyda Yüksel (21) in Izmir, with a 'provocation' reduction that was also upheld by the Court of Cassation, was rejected. In the rejection of the objection, it was stated that it was possible for Dindar to expect sexual closeness from Ceyda.
A CASE WAS FILED FOR INTENTIONAL MURDER
On August 20, 2020, at around 01:00, police teams in Izmir received a report of a discussion and the sound of glass breaking coming from the ground floor apartment of Serkan Dindar, a master welder living on 5218th Street in Barbaros Neighborhood. When the police arrived at the address and entered the apartment, they found Ceyda Yüksel dead. It was determined that Yüksel's right arm was severed to the point of being cut off and that there were glass cuts on her body. After the autopsy, Ceyda's body was buried in Istanbul. Dindar, who was taken into custody and found to be under the influence of alcohol, stated that he did not remember the incident. It was revealed that Dindar, who was arrested, had a criminal record for 'Injury' and 'Endangering traffic.' It was determined that Ceyda Yüksel followed the same travel and camping pages as Serkan Dindar on social media, and that the two met this way and often chatted about their beloved dogs. The Izmir Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit against Dindar for 'Intentional murder' with a request for life imprisonment at the end of the investigation. As a result of the trial at the Izmir 6th Criminal Court, the court panel sentenced Dindar to life imprisonment for 'Intentional murder,' then applied a 'provocation' reduction, reducing the sentence to 18 years in prison. The court panel did not impose a sentence on the defendant for the crime of 'Dealing with narcotic substances.'
REASONED DECISION
The reasoning of the decision was announced. In the reasoned decision, it was emphasized that Ceyda Yüksel had an argument on the street while returning home at night because she rejected Dindar's proposal for sexual intercourse, and based on the statements of those around, it was noted that the argument continued inside the house. It was stated that the defendant Dindar, under the influence of provocation, held Yüksel in such a way that she broke the glass of the living room door and hit the door. It was reported that Dindar's act of inserting Yüksel's head and chest, which contained vital organs and vessels, into the door opening where there were glass shards and pulling it back was directed towards the result of murder. It was emphasized that Dindar committed the crime under provocation, and considering the nature and extent of the grief and anger he experienced, a 'provocation' reduction was applied.
On the other hand, it was reported that Dindar was not sentenced for the crime of 'Dealing with narcotic substances' due to confirming his drug use and providing useful information about S.S., who was understood to be dealing with drugs. The local court's decision was unanimously upheld by the Izmir Regional Court of Justice 1st Criminal Chamber. Later, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation found no error in the 'provocation' reduction given to Dindar and upheld the decision.
MINISTRY'S OBJECTION
Following the Court of Cassation's decision, the Ministry, under the instruction of Minister of Family and Social Services Mahinur Özdemir Göktaş, worked against the sentence given to Serkan Dindar, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation with a 'provocation reduction.' The Ministry, which intervened in the case seen at the Izmir 6th Heavy Penal Court, appealed the decision of the Court of Cassation, which considered rejecting sexual intercourse as a reason for provocation and approved the reduction of the sentence for the murder defendant on this basis. In the objection, it was stated that the decision, which was also requested to be overturned by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation for the same reason, was examined by the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation and upheld in this form. The Ministry applied to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation to send the file to the Criminal General Assembly under the 'Authority of Objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation' regulated in Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
After the Ministry's objection, the file was re-examined. It was concluded that Dindar, thinking that it was possible for Yüksel to feel sexual closeness due to their relaxed attitudes and behaviors after hosting her at his home and drinking alcohol together, had an argument with Yüksel, who rejected his desire for sexual closeness, and that he committed the act under the influence of the anger and rage he experienced during the ongoing argument.
'FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW'
The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation stated that the allegations and defenses put forward were discussed and shown in the reasoned decision along with the collected evidence, that the evidence relied upon in the judgment and rejected was clearly shown, and that the moral conviction was based on definite data compatible with the documents and information in the file. It was noted that there was no lack of investigation in the incident, and it was understood that the discretion reduction was not applied with legal, appropriate, and sufficient justifications within the discretion of the court. For these reasons, it was stated that the decision was found to be in accordance with the law, and therefore the objection was rejected.