Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesi’nin 2021\/14853 E. Ve 2022\/10258 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zetle;
San\u0131k a\u015famalarda al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131nda; kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun evine, e\u015fi olan \u2026\u2019\u0131n daveti \u00fczerine, dertle\u015fmek ve hasta olmas\u0131 nedeniyle yard\u0131mc\u0131 olmak amac\u0131yla gitti\u011fini su\u00e7suz oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015f ve bu beyan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde \u2026 ve annesi \u2026\u2019\u0131n anlat\u0131m\u0131 ile de do\u011frulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Ancak;
Kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdur, k\u0131z\u0131 ve kay\u0131nvalidesiyle \u2026\u2019a gittiklerini, su\u00e7 tarihi itibariyle evli oldu\u011fu e\u015finin n\u00f6beti oldu\u011fu bahanesiyle kendileriyle gelmedi\u011fini, konutlar\u0131na ait g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re, e\u015finin i\u015ften izin al\u0131p eve geldi\u011fini, hemen arkas\u0131ndan da san\u0131\u011f\u0131n evlerine geldi\u011fini, e\u015fiyle ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu, g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 ibraz edece\u011fini beyan ile san\u0131ktan \u015fikayet\u00e7i olmu\u015ftur.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince somut bir delilin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.
Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan, kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun olay tarihi itibariyle resmi nikahl\u0131 e\u015fi olan \u2026\u2019\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Zincirleme olarak i\u015flenen nitelikli konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihl\u00e2li su\u00e7undan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n eylemlerine uyan 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 TCK\u2019n\u0131n 116\/4 ve 43\/1. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 yerine yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde beraat karar\u0131 verilmesi gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesi’nin 2021\/14853 E. Ve 2022\/10258 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi
SU\u00c7 : Konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlali
H\u00dcK\u00dcM : Beraat
Mahalli mahkemece verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm temyiz edilmekle dosya incelenerek, gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:
San\u0131k hakk\u0131nda … Anadolu Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nca d\u00fczenlenen 01.09.2015 tarih ve 2015\/30389 say\u0131l\u0131 iddianame ile su\u00e7 tarihinde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n i\u015flemi\u015f oldu\u011fu konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihlali su\u00e7undan 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 TCK\u2019n\u0131n 116\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan dava sonucunda … Anadolu 63. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinin 11.05.2016 tarihli karar\u0131yla san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda soyut iddia d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda somut bir delilin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle CMK’n\u0131n 223\/2-c maddesi gere\u011fince beraatine karar verildi\u011fi, bu h\u00fckm\u00fcn kat\u0131lan vekili taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde temyiz edildi\u011fi dosya kapsam\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Yarg\u0131tay Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zetle; verilen beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esi hatal\u0131 olmakla birlikte sonu\u00e7ta verilen beraat karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndedir.
Somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fi itibariyle ilgilinin (ma\u011fdurun) r\u0131zas\u0131 ve zincirleme su\u00e7 h\u00fck\u00fcmleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereklidir.
TCK\u2019n\u0131n 26\/2. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u201cilgilinin r\u0131zas\u0131\u201d hukuka uygunluk nedenidir.
TCK\u2019n\u0131n 116\/3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u201cEvlilik birli\u011finde aile bireylerinden ya da konutun veya i\u015fyerinin birden fazla ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan ortak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda, bu ki\u015filerden birinin r\u0131zas\u0131 varsa, yukar\u0131daki f\u0131kralar h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uygulanmaz. Ancak bunun i\u00e7in r\u0131za a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 gerekir.\u201d
San\u0131k a\u015famalarda al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun evine, e\u015fi olan …\u2019\u0131n daveti \u00fczerine, dertle\u015fmek ve hasta olmas\u0131 nedeniyle yard\u0131mc\u0131 olmak amac\u0131yla gitti\u011fini su\u00e7suz oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015f ve bu beyan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde … ve annesi …\u2019\u0131n anlat\u0131m\u0131 ile de do\u011frulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Ancak;
Kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdur, k\u0131z\u0131 ve kay\u0131nvalidesiyle …\u2019a gittiklerini, su\u00e7 tarihi itibariyle evli oldu\u011fu e\u015finin n\u00f6beti oldu\u011fu bahanesiyle kendileriyle gelmedi\u011fini, konutlar\u0131na ait g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re, e\u015finin i\u015ften izin al\u0131p eve geldi\u011fini, hemen arkas\u0131ndan da san\u0131\u011f\u0131n evlerine geldi\u011fini, e\u015fiyle ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011funu, g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 ibraz edece\u011fini beyan ile san\u0131ktan \u015fikayet\u00e7i olmu\u015ftur.
Dosyada mevcut g\u00fcvenlik kameras\u0131 kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re san\u0131\u011f\u0131n, 29.04.2015 g\u00fcn\u00fc saat 14.13\u2019de kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun evinin bulundu\u011fu binaya girip, ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn saat: 20.15\u2019de binadan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, 01.05.2015 g\u00fcn\u00fc saat 12:50\u2019de binaya girip ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn saat 17.13\u2019de binadan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, 02.05.2015 g\u00fcn\u00fc saat 07.50\u2019de binaya girip, ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn saat 13.24\u2019de binadan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir.
Kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdur taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya ibraz edilen foto\u011fraflarda san\u0131k ile kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun su\u00e7 tarihi itibariyle e\u015fi olan …\u2019la i\u015f arkada\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00f6te samimi pozlar verdi\u011fi de tespit edilmi\u015ftir.
Ya\u015fanan bu geli\u015fmelerden sonra kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdur taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131k … aleyhine bo\u015fanma davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve … Anadolu 3. Aile Mahkemesinin 2015\/415 Esas ve 2017\/701 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla sadakatsizlik sebebiyle bo\u015fanma karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f, bu karar 30.04.2020 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 TMK\u2019n\u0131n 185. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, evlilik birli\u011finde e\u015flerinin birbirlerine kar\u015f\u0131 sadakat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc vard\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda zina fiili i\u015flenmemi\u015f olsa bile, kocan\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ahvalde bir ba\u015fka erke\u011fi saatlerce evlerinde tek ba\u015f\u0131na a\u011f\u0131rlamak sadakat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir davran\u0131\u015f olu\u015fturur.
Bu itibarla Daire olarak, kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun olay tarihi itibariyle resmi nikahl\u0131 e\u015fi olan …\u2019\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru bir amaca y\u00f6nelik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmi\u015ftir.
\u00d6te yandan TCK’n\u0131n \u201czincirleme su\u00e7\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 43\/1. maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cBir su\u00e7 i\u015fleme karar\u0131n\u0131n icras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda bir ki\u015fiye kar\u015f\u0131 ayn\u0131 su\u00e7un birden fazla i\u015flenmesi halinde, faile tek ceza verilir. Ancak; bu ceza d\u00f6rtte birinden d\u00f6rtte \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcne kadar art\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d
Zincirleme su\u00e7 h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin uygulanabilmesi i\u00e7in, mutlaka, bir su\u00e7 i\u015fleme karar\u0131n\u0131n icras\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda ayn\u0131 su\u00e7un ayn\u0131 ma\u011fdura birden fazla i\u015flenmesi gereklidir. \u00d6rne\u011fin; sabah konuttan para, anahtar vs. \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fcn ak\u015fam\u0131 da, \u00e7al\u0131nan bu ara\u00e7 anahtar\u0131yla konutun \u00f6n\u00fcnde park halinde bulunan ayn\u0131 ma\u011fdura ait arac\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131 halinde zincirleme su\u00e7un varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilebilir.
Fiilin do\u011fal anlamda tekli\u011fi ile hukuki teklik kavramlar\u0131 farkl\u0131d\u0131r.
Dar bir yorumla, de\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda i\u015flendi\u011fi kabul edilebilecek fiillerin birden fazla olmas\u0131, her zaman hukuken de birden fazla fiilin ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla birden fazla su\u00e7un varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmemizi gerektirmez.
765 say\u0131l\u0131 TCK’n\u0131n 80. maddesinde \u201cmuhtelif zamanlarda vaki olsa bile\u201d ibaresinin yer almas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 TCK’n\u0131n 43\/1. maddesinde \u201cde\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda\u201d ib\u00e2resine yer verilmesini de dikkate ald\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131zda; yeni d\u00f6nemde \u201cgeni\u015f yorum\u201dun kabul edildi\u011fini, fiilin do\u011fal olarak tekli\u011fi ile hukuki teklik kavramlar\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, aralar\u0131nda hukuki ve fiili kesinti olmayan, her biri tek ba\u015f\u0131na da su\u00e7 te\u015fkil edebilen hareketlerin k\u0131sa s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde tekrarlanmas\u0131 halinde, bu hareketlerin bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak tek bir fiil olarak kabul edilmesi gerekir.
Fiilin tekli\u011fi kavram\u0131 ile hareketin tekli\u011fi kavramlar\u0131 da ayn\u0131 de\u011fildir. Kasten yaralama su\u00e7unda, k\u0131sa aral\u0131klarla yap\u0131lan silah at\u0131\u015f\u0131 ya da at\u0131lan yumruk say\u0131s\u0131 birden fazla diye, at\u0131\u015f ya da darbe say\u0131s\u0131 kadar fiilin ve kasten yaralama su\u00e7unun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 veya cinsel sald\u0131r\u0131 su\u00e7unda duh\u00fbl say\u0131s\u0131 kadar fiil ve su\u00e7un varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabule imkan yoktur. H\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k su\u00e7u ile ilgili olarak bir \u00f6rnek vermek gerekirse; fail, \u00fc\u00e7 orta\u011fa ait olan (bunu fail de biliyor olsun …) markete girip i\u00e7eriden, 15 kg. \u00e7ay, 20 kg. \u015feker, 50 kg. ya\u011f, 50 kg. tuz, 70 koli deterjan, kasadan para, masan\u0131n \u00fczerindeki cep telefonu ve saireyi ayn\u0131 zamanda alm\u0131\u015f olsun. Bu \u00f6rnekte \u00e7ok say\u0131da alma fiili olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bunlar\u0131n hukuken tek bir fiil ve tek bir h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k su\u00e7unu olu\u015fturdu\u011funda ku\u015fku bulunmasa gerekir.
Nitekim, Yarg\u0131tay Ceza Genel Kurulu da bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerden hareketle, 02.10.2007 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 2007\/6-195 Esas ve 2007\/197 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda, \u201cfiilin tekli\u011fi\u201d konusunda geni\u015f yorumu benimsenmek suretiyle, \u201cyak\u0131nan\u0131n evinden para ve bir k\u0131s\u0131m e\u015fya ile birlikte al\u0131nan otomobil anahtar\u0131yla evin otopark\u0131nda bulunan arac\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n tek bir h\u0131rs\u0131zl\u0131k su\u00e7unu olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131\u201d n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. YCGK, 21.05.2013 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 2012\/1543 Esas ve 2013\/257 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda;
\u201cg\u00fcnd\u00fczleyin bina i\u00e7inden ma\u011fdura ait cep telefonu ve ara\u00e7 anahtar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131, ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fcn gecesinde de; g\u00fcnd\u00fcz \u00e7al\u0131nan anahtarla ma\u011fdurun otomobilinin \u00e7al\u0131nmaya te\u015febb\u00fcs edilmesi su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131\u201d fiiller aras\u0131nda zaman bak\u0131m\u0131ndan aral\u0131k(fiili kesinti) bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle zincirleme su\u00e7un varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir.
YCGK, 08.06.2010 g\u00fcnl\u00fc, 11\/98\u2013143 Esas ve Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda ise; \u201cKanunda \u201cayn\u0131 zaman\u201d ve \u201cde\u011fi\u015fik zaman\u201d kavramlar\u0131 konusunda a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, bu hususun her somut olay\u0131n \u00f6zelli\u011fi g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve eylemin de\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda i\u015flenip i\u015flenmedi\u011finin belirlenmesi, bu ba\u011flamda, ayn\u0131 zaman kavram\u0131n\u0131n dar yorumlanmayarak, \u00e7ok k\u0131sa zaman aral\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n da ayn\u0131 zaman dilimi olarak kabul edilmesi\u201d gerekti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalardan sonra somut olay zincirleme su\u00e7 h\u00fck\u00fcmleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; \u00f6ncelikle belirtmek gerekirse, konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihl\u00e2li su\u00e7lar\u0131 ani su\u00e7\/m\u00fctemadi su\u00e7 ay\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda m\u00fctemadi bir su\u00e7tur. San\u0131\u011f\u0131n 29.04.2015, 01.05.2015 ve 02.05.2015 tarihlerinde kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ihl\u00e2l su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7 kez i\u015fledi\u011fi s\u00fcbuta ermi\u015f ise de, bir(ayn\u0131) su\u00e7 i\u015fleme karar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda ayn\u0131 su\u00e7un ayn\u0131 ma\u011fdura kar\u015f\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fik zamanlarda i\u015flenmesi h\u00e2li s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fundan, san\u0131k hakk\u0131nda ger\u00e7ek i\u00e7tima h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin uygulanmas\u0131 yerine, zincirleme su\u00e7 h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uyar\u0131nca bir ceza verilmesi ve bu cezada TCK\u2019n\u0131n 43\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca belirlenecek bir miktarda art\u0131r\u0131m yap\u0131lmas\u0131yla yetinilmesi gerekir.
Nihayet san\u0131\u011f\u0131n 29.04.2015 g\u00fcn\u00fc saat: 20.15\u2019de binadan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, yaz saati uygulamas\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek olay yerinde g\u00fcne\u015fin 19.02’de batt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda; su\u00e7un gece say\u0131lan zaman dilimi i\u00e7erisinde i\u015flendi\u011fi kabul edilmeli ve zincirleme su\u00e7 art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 TCK\u2019n\u0131n 116\/4. maddesi uyar\u0131nca belirlenecek ceza \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
\u0130ddianamedeki nitelendirme dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda san\u0131\u011fa 5271 say\u0131l\u0131 CMK\u2019n\u0131n 226. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ek savunma hakk\u0131 da verildikten sonra, zincirleme olarak i\u015flenen nitelikli konut dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ihl\u00e2li su\u00e7undan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n eylemlerine uyan 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 TCK\u2019n\u0131n 116\/4 ve 43\/1. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 yerine yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde beraat karar\u0131 verilmesi,
Bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015f, kat\u0131lan vekilinin temyiz istemi bu itibarla yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f oldu\u011fundan h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenle tebli\u011fnameye ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak BOZULMASINA, 29.06.2022 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yarg\u0131tay 6. Ceza Dairesi’nin 2021\/14853 E. Ve 2022\/10258 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zetle;San\u0131k a\u015famalarda al\u0131nan savunmas\u0131nda; kat\u0131lan ma\u011fdurun evine, e\u015fi olan \u2026\u2019\u0131n daveti \u00fczerine, dertle\u015fmek ve hasta olmas\u0131 nedeniyle yard\u0131mc\u0131 olmak amac\u0131yla gitti\u011fini su\u00e7suz oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015f ve bu beyan b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde \u2026 ve annesi \u2026\u2019\u0131n anlat\u0131m\u0131 ile<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-av-hande-yetik"],"yoast_head":"\n