04.03.2025 20:50
In the Malkara district of Tekirdağ, the mother Bakiye Yeniçeri, who was on trial for the death of 2-year-old Sıla, who was sexually abused and beaten, along with the minors G.A. and K.A. who were involved in the crime, have been sentenced to prison. In the case where 2 defendants were acquitted, the court has announced its reasoned decision. The details are truly chilling.
Bakiye Yeniçeri, who lives in the Malkara district of Tekirdağ, took her daughter Sıla Yeniçeri to Malkara State Hospital on August 2. Yeniçeri stated that her child, who had bruises on her body, was dropped by a neighbor and was injured. After being examined, Sıla Yeniçeri was later handed over to her family and sent home. The family took Sıla Yeniçeri back to Malkara State Hospital on the evening of September 8. Doctors examining Sıla Yeniçeri, who was in a faint state, reported the situation to the police upon seeing the signs of assault and bruises. Sıla Yeniçeri, whose condition was serious, was transferred to Tekirdağ İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu City Hospital. During her examination, it was determined that Sıla Yeniçeri had suffered a brain hemorrhage, and findings indicating that she had been subjected to physical violence were obtained, leading to her being taken into surgery. The hospital also sent DNA samples taken from Sıla Yeniçeri to the Tekirdağ Forensic Medicine Institution for examination.
5 SUSPECTS ARRESTED In the investigation, which was given a confidentiality order, Tekirdağ Police Department teams detained 5 suspects, including Bakiye Yeniçeri. In the investigation, Bakiye Yeniçeri, her partner Sanlı Ö. (58), her neighbor, and the father of the children, Kani A. (33), as well as the children of the neighbor who left the baby, G. K. (15) and K. A. (14) were arrested. Tekirdağ Bar Association President Egemen Gürcün announced on September 11 that it was confirmed by forensic reports that Sıla Yeniçeri had been sexually abused. Sıla Yeniçeri, who was being treated in the pediatric intensive care unit of Tekirdağ İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu City Hospital, lost her one-month battle for life on October 7. Kani A., one of the arrested defendants, was released in the following days to be tried without detention.
2 INDICTMENTS COMBINED Completing its investigation into the incident, the Tekirdağ Chief Public Prosecutor's Office prepared 2 separate indictments for Bakiye Yeniçeri, Sanlı Ö., Kani A., G. K., and K. A. In the indictment, a total of 67 years of imprisonment was requested for mother Bakiye Yeniçeri for the crimes of 'intentional killing by negligent behavior', 'destroying, concealing, or altering evidence', and 'violation of obligations arising from family law'. For Sanlı Ö., 1 year and 6 months for 'failure to report a crime, concealment', and for Kani A., the father of the children, 28 years and 6 months for 'sexual abuse of a child' and 'deprivation of liberty' were requested. The indictment prepared for the juvenile offenders G. K. and K. A. was sent to the Tekirdağ 3rd Heavy Criminal Court. In the indictment, a total of 66 years was requested for G. K. for 'qualified sexual abuse of a child' and 'deprivation of liberty', while for K. A., 48 years for 'qualified sexual abuse', 'deprivation of liberty', and aggravated life imprisonment for 'intentional killing'. The two separate indictments were combined in the Tekirdağ 2nd Heavy Criminal Court.
SILA'S DEATH DUE TO TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY In the indictment, it was stated that in the forensic report prepared by the Istanbul 1st Forensic Medicine Specialization Board, it was reported that the baby's death occurred due to intracranial bleeding caused by blunt head trauma, and it was noted that there was a causal link between her death and the injury caused by blunt head trauma. In the expert report prepared at Tekirdağ City Hospital, it was also stated that she had been sexually abused. It was expressed that there were bite marks on the baby's body, and the marks contained K. A.'s DNA profile.
3 PEOPLE SENTENCED TO PRISON In the trial, mother Bakiye Yeniçeri was sentenced to a total of 27 years and 9 months in prison: 24 years for 'intentional killing by negligent behavior', 3 years for 'destroying evidence', and 9 months for 'failure to report a crime'. The juvenile offender K. A. was sentenced to a total of 20 years and 6 months: 13 years and 6 months for 'intentional killing' and 7 years for 'sexual abuse'. The other juvenile offender G. K. received a 7-year prison sentence for 'sexual abuse'.
NO DISCOUNT APPLIED TO THE MOTHER The court panel did not apply any discounts to the sentences given to Sıla's mother, Bakiye Yeniçeri, who was sentenced to 27 years and 9 months in prison. In the decision, it was stated that there was no room for a discretionary reduction in the prison sentence given for the three separate crimes.
OTHER DEFENDANTS ACQUITTED In the case, Sanlı Ö., who lived with Bakiye Yeniçeri, and Kani A., the father of the juvenile offender K. A., who were tried without detention, were acquitted.
REASONED DECISION ANNOUNCED The Tekirdağ 2nd Heavy Criminal Court announced the reasoned decision regarding the case of Sıla Yeniçeri. In the reasoned decision, regarding the crime of 'intentional killing by negligent behavior' for mother Bakiye Yeniçeri, it was stated, "Legal norms appear in two forms, as prohibitive and imperative norms. In prohibitive norms, which can only be violated by an active act, a violation of a right occurs as a result of the prohibited act being performed. For example, the norm prohibiting killing in Article 81 of the Turkish Penal Code would be violated by the killing of a person. In imperative norms, on the other hand, the performance of a specific act is not prohibited; rather, the performance of a specific act is mandated. Failure to comply with this imperative rule, in other words, the non-fulfillment of the mandated act, results in injustice, meaning that the crime defined in the law is committed by negligent behavior," it was stated.
In order to qualify the defendant's act, the relevant articles of the Turkish Penal Code were emphasized in the decision, stating, "If the norm prohibiting taking life, that is, killing, is realized through a deliberate and active act, that is, through an active behavior aimed at ending another person's life, the crime of intentional killing regulated in Articles 81 and 82 of the Turkish Penal Code will have been committed. The important point for the formation of this crime is that an act aimed at eliminating another person's life has been carried out. In contrast, when the norm prohibiting killing is violated by a negligent act, the perpetrator does not carry out an active behavior aimed at ending another person's life; the crime of killing is committed by a person who is obliged to protect another's life, by violating this obligation. However, in this case, the perpetrator can only be a person who is legally obliged (by law, contract, or due to dangerous behavior prior to the incident) to protect another's life, or a person who is legally guaranteed to protect that individual from an attack or danger to their life.
If a person who is legally obligated to protect another's life fails to fulfill this obligation with the awareness that it will result in death, it is referred to as committing intentional homicide through negligent behavior (Article 83 of the Turkish Penal Code). Conversely, if such a person consciously neglects their obligation but does not act with the awareness that the life they are obligated to protect will end, and yet death occurs as a result of this negligence, the crime of causing death by negligence (Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code) is applicable. In cases where death results from negligent behavior, the circumstances of the specific case must be carefully considered to determine whether the perpetrator acted intentionally or negligently regarding the outcome of death. Undoubtedly, in cases where death occurs intentionally, it should be considered whether it was with possible intent; in cases where it occurs negligently, it should also be examined whether it was with conscious negligence. In this context, for the crime in Article 83 to be established, it is stated that the person who is legally, contractually, or due to a dangerous behavior required to protect and supervise another's life must not engage in any conduct aimed at saving that life, either with direct intent to cause death or with possible intent, despite the emergence of a danger that the life they are obligated to protect may end.
"ACCEPTED THE RISK OF DEATH" In the decision referring to the relevant legal article, it is stated, "When evaluating the specific case; it is undisputed that the defendant is the mother of the two-year-old victim Sıla, and therefore has custody of the child, and according to the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, she has a duty of care and supervision over the victim. Despite these obligations, the defendant, citing her work, left the victim, who was only 2 years old, several times with children who were also involved in criminal activities, as detailed above. Although she was aware that the victim was assaulted on 02/09/2024 and filed a complaint, she again left the victim at this house on 05/09/2024, where the victim was sexually abused by the children involved in criminal activities as explained above. Despite being aware of this situation through the victim's blood-stained diaper, and according to her statement, the victim had bruises and bite marks every time she returned home, and despite being warned by the witness Şener U. that the victim was assaulted and would be harmed, she again left the victim at this house on 08/09/2024, which led to the victim being killed by the child K. A. Although the defendant claimed during the trial phase that she had to leave her children at this residence due to pressure from Sanlı, the defendant Sanlı did not accept this claim. The statement of the defendant's father, Latif, who was heard as a witness, also indicated that he sent his daughter to retrieve her from Sanlı, but the defendant did not accept this. Moreover, considering that she could have applied to the relevant authorities for help if she was unable to care for her children, her statements were evaluated as aimed at escaping punishment. It was determined that the defendant acted with possible intent, accepting the risk of death despite the emergence of a danger that the life she was obligated to protect would end. Since there was no evidence that the defendant acted with direct intent to cause this death, it was concluded that she was responsible for the victim Sıla's care due to being the mother, and thus, according to Article 83/2-a of the Turkish Penal Code, she violated her duty of care and supervision, and this negligence was equivalent to an act of commission. It was understood from the entire case file that the crime of committing homicide through negligent behavior was established, and it was decided to punish the defendant Bakiye Yeniçeri for the act of committing homicide through negligent behavior against the victim Sıla Yeniçeri, in accordance with Articles 82/1-d-e and 83/2-a of the Turkish Penal Code, taking into account the severity of the negligence, with a sentence that deviated from the lower limit. Although the defendant's act was accepted as having been committed with possible intent, as stated in the ruling of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation No. 2016/3056 E. 2018/1201 K., for the crime in Article 83 of the Turkish Penal Code to be established, the person who is legally obligated to protect and supervise another's life must not engage in any conduct aimed at saving that life, either with direct intent to cause death or with possible intent, despite the emergence of a danger that the life they are obligated to protect may end. Since the crime itself contains possible intent, the provisions of possible intent in Article 21/2 of the Turkish Penal Code cannot be applied together in this specific case, and thus no reduction was made from the defendant's sentence based on the provisions of possible intent. Considering the defendant's social relationships, observed behaviors after the act and during the trial process, and the possible effects of the sentence on the defendant's future, it was decided that there was no room for a discretionary reduction of the sentence according to Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code, and since the defendant was without a criminal record, and there was no positive opinion formed in our court regarding her remorse and the possibility of reoffending if her sentence were postponed, it was decided that there was no room for the postponement of the sentence according to Article 231/5 of the Criminal Procedure Code or for the postponement of the sentence according to Article 51 of the Turkish Penal Code, and the judgment was made as follows."
"THREW THE BLOODY DIAPER IN THE TRASH" In the evaluation of the crime of 'Destruction, concealment, or alteration of evidence and failure to report the crime' attributed to mother Bakiye Yeniçeri, it was stated, "As a result of Bakiye's desire to bathe her children because she thought they were dirty, she opened the victim Sıla's diaper and saw blood in it. Although she thought and realized that the victim might have been sexually abused, she cleaned the victim without any questioning, investigation, or notification to the relevant authorities, and first threw the bloody diaper in the trash can at her residence and later, fearing that her family would be angry with her and that they would say she could not take care of her children, she threw it in a trash can far from her residence, which could not be identified. The defendant thus destroyed important evidence related to the sexual abuse and, despite knowing that her child had been abused, failed to notify the relevant authorities. Later, after the victim was killed, the investigation revealed the abuse. Although the defendant claimed during the trial phase that she did not see the bloody diaper, the statements she made during the investigation, which contained detailed and characteristic descriptions of the incident, were credible. The fact that the victim was confirmed to have been sexually abused by the expert report and that the presence of blood in the diaper was consistent with the ordinary course of life led to the conclusion that her statements during the investigation were credible, and thus her statements during the trial were evaluated as aimed at escaping punishment. For these reasons, it was determined that the defendant Bakiye Yeniçeri committed the crime of 'Destruction, concealment, or alteration of evidence,' and she was punished according to Article 281/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, taking into account the nature of the evidence. Additionally, since it was established that she committed the crime of 'Failure to report the crime,' she was punished according to Article 278/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, referring to Articles 278/1 and 3, considering the nature of the concealed crime. Taking into account the defendant's social relationships, observed behaviors after the act and during the trial process, and the possible effects of the sentence on the defendant's future, it was decided that there was no room for a discretionary reduction of the sentence according to Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code. Despite the defendant being without a criminal record, there was no positive opinion formed in our court regarding her remorse, and it was concluded that there was no room for the postponement of the sentence according to Article 231/5 of the Criminal Procedure Code or for the postponement of the sentence according to Article 51 of the Turkish Penal Code, and the judgment was made as follows."
```html
Bakiye Yeniçeri's statement regarding the crime of 'violation of obligations arising from family law' also stated, "Although a public case has been opened against the defendant for being accused of committing the crime of violation of obligations arising from family law; as explained in detail above, it is undisputed that the defendant is the mother of the two-year-old victim Sıla, and for this reason, she has custody of the child, and according to the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, she has a duty of care and supervision over the victim. It is accepted that the defendant committed the crime of negligent homicide by violating her duty of care and supervision arising from civil law, and therefore, the actions of failing to fulfill the obligations of care, education, and support arising from family law towards the victim are also considered within the scope of the crime of murder. Considering the rule of concurrent offenses regulated in Article 44 of the Turkish Penal Code, it has been evaluated that the act constitutes only the crime of negligent homicide as a whole, and it has been decided that there is no place for a conviction regarding this crime against the defendant."
CHILDREN INVOLVED IN CRIME In the reasoned decision, regarding the evaluation of the children involved in the crime, K. A. and G. K., it was stated, "Due to the nature of sexual crimes, they mostly occur solely between the victim and the defendant, particularly in a private manner. In connection with this, it is quite difficult to apply the general rules of evidence used in criminal proceedings for the proof of sexual crimes. However, it is also not possible to completely avoid the perpetrator of these crimes from punishment. Therefore, the evidence sought for the establishment of sexual crimes should be evaluated in a manner appropriate to the nature of the crime. In this context, it is believed that the statements and scientific evidence should be taken into account when evaluating the establishment of sexual crimes. In the current situation, based on the explanations provided above, in the evaluation made by our court; it was stated that the victim Sıla and her sister were left at the residence of the neighbor, K. A., who is a child involved in the crime, by their mother Bakiye Yeniçeri on the date of the incident, 05/09/2024, as had happened many times before, and that the other child involved in the crime, G. K., came to the residence of K. A., who is her friend."
In the decision, it was noted that the children involved in the crime were found to have committed qualified sexual offenses and were punished for this crime. The decision stated, "Although a case has been opened against the children involved in the crime for the crime of 'deprivation of liberty'; according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, the act of sexual abuse of a child does not constitute the crime of deprivation of liberty, as the possibility of the victim to act with their will is eliminated only during the act and for a limited time. Considering that the body of the person is the subject of the crime, this crime cannot be committed without eliminating the victim's freedom of movement, it has been observed that after the children involved in the crime finished their actions, they dressed the victim Sıla, and the victim Sıla went to the other room in the residence crying. In light of the fact that there were no other actions restricting the victim's freedom in the same room apart from the act to which the victim was subjected, it has been decided that the legal elements of the crime of deprivation of liberty were not fulfilled, and the children involved in the crime were acquitted of the charges."
'INTENTIONAL MURDER PENALTY' FOR K. A. In the reasoned decision, regarding the evaluation of K. A. for the crime of 'intentional murder', it was stated that on the day of the incident, the victim's mother sent Sıla to the residence of K. A. It was noted that "According to K. A.'s statement, the suspect Kani A., who is the father, bought snacks for the victim, was jealous of the victim, and remembered that the victim had previously broken his toy car. Therefore, K. A. took the victim Sıla alone to the room referred to as the coal room, which contained a refrigerator, sofa, cupboard, and table, under the pretext that the victim Sıla was being naughty. At a moment when no one was watching, K. A. hit the victim Sıla multiple times on the waist and buttocks with one of the sticks in the coal room, and when he could not control his anger, he punched the victim in the head, causing the victim Sıla's head to hit the lower door of the refrigerator. The victim Sıla's eyes closed, and she collapsed. K. A. lifted the victim Sıla from the ground and sat her on the sofa in the living room, made her smell cologne and onion, but when she did not regain consciousness, he informed Bakiye, the mother of the victim. Later, when the victim's mother Bakiye came to the residence of the neighbors, she saw the victim Sıla in that condition and informed her boyfriend, the suspect Sanlı Ö., and they brought the victim Sıla to Malkara State Hospital in a life-threatening condition around 18:30, where it was determined that the victim Sıla had suffered a brain hemorrhage."
In the decision, it was stated, "At this point, what needs to be determined by our court is whether the defendant acted with the intent to kill." It was further stated:
"When the concrete case is evaluated; the act of the child involved in the crime hitting the victim with a stick due to jealousy and damaging the toys, followed by punching the victim in the head and causing her head to hit the cupboard, is considered. Given that the victim is a two-year-old baby in need of care, the child involved in the crime foresaw that the blows to the victim's body and head could lead to death, and since he carried out the act knowingly and willingly, it is evaluated that his intent was directed towards killing. Therefore, it has been concluded that the crime has been established, and since the child involved in the crime was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, he is to be punished in accordance with Article 82/1-e of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. It has been understood that he was between the ages of 12 and 15 at the time of the offense and had the ability to perceive the legal meaning and consequences of the act and to direct his behavior regarding this act. Considering the nature of the crime, the time and place it was committed, the intensity of the intent, the purpose and motive, and taking into account the social investigation report, it has been decided to impose a penalty by moving away from the lower limit in accordance with Article 31/2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and the last sentence of Article 31/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, and it has been decided that there is no place for a reduction of the penalty in accordance with Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, considering the social relationships of the child involved in the crime as understood from the case file, the observed behaviors after the act and during the trial process, and the possible effects of the penalty on the future."
ACQUITTED DEFENDANTS In the decision, regarding the acquittal of Sanlı Ö., it was stated that the only evidence available was the statements of Bakiye Yeniçeri, and it was noted that "The defendant did not accept the charges against him, the only evidence that the victim committed the alleged crime was the statements of the other defendant Bakiye during the investigation phase, therefore, it was concluded that the defendant should be punished for the alleged crime of knowing that the victim was subjected to sexual abuse and not reporting this crime, and since no evidence could be obtained other than the statements of the other defendant regarding the nature of the crime, it was decided to acquit the defendant of the alleged crime."
"NO CONCRETE AND DEFINITE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED REGARDING KANI A." In the evaluation regarding the acquitted Kani A., it was also noted that no concrete and definite evidence could be obtained beyond any reasonable doubt for his conviction regarding the alleged crime. In the reasoned decision, it was stated that "There is no evidence that the defendant was residing with the victim at that time, in the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution, it was summarized that the DNA obtained from the victim was compatible with the father-son DNA sequence of K. A. and Kani A., and it was indicated that it could not be clearly determined to whom the obtained DNA profile belonged, in other words, the father and son have the same DNA, and it was also stated in the same report that the DNA profile from the bite mark on the right thigh of the victim mainly contained the DNA profile of the child K. A. who was dragged into the crime, and according to the trial and the evidence collected, it was understood that no concrete and definite evidence could be obtained beyond any reasonable doubt for the conviction of the defendant regarding the alleged crime, and thus it was decided to acquit him of the alleged crime and the judgment was established as follows."
.
```
Let me know if you need any further assistance!