Court of Cassation ruling for son-in-law who called his former mother-in-law a 'pervert'

According to the decision of the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a man living in the Ereğli district of Konya sent a message via WhatsApp to his ex-wife, telling her to keep his former mother-in-law away from his child.

LAWSUIT OVER 'PERVERT' REMARK

In the message, the son-in-law used the term "pervert" in reference to his former mother-in-law. Following a complaint, a lawsuit was filed against the former son-in-law for the crime of "insult via communication."

REGIONAL COURT ISSUED ACQUITTAL

The Ereğli 1st Criminal Court of First Instance, which heard the case, ruled that the defendant's action constituted the crime of "insult in absentia" and acquitted him of the charged offense on the grounds that the defendant and the victim did not come face-to-face.

The former mother-in-law, who was accepted as a participant in the case, appealed the local court's acquittal decision.

COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED THE DECISION

Reviewing the appeal request, the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the decision on the grounds that the defendant's action fell under the crime of "insult via communication."

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

In its decision, the Chamber stated that the crime of insult can be committed both in the presence of the victim and in their absence, noting: "If the perpetrator knows and intends that the insult targeting the victim can be directly perceived by the victim at the time the act is committed, then the crime shall be considered to have been committed in the presence of the victim."

The decision explained that cases where the crime is not committed in the presence of the victim but is considered as such are called "insult via communication," and that this is defined as a crime in Article 125, paragraph 2 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237.

The ruling stated, "A letter, phone conversation, or written message containing an insult is punished as if it were spoken in the presence of the victim."

The decision pointed out that for an insult via communication to be punished as if it were committed in the presence of the victim, the defendant must have acted with the intent to transmit the message. It emphasized that if the communication was sent to someone other than the victim and was only learned by the victim by chance, the crime of insult in the presence of the victim would not occur.

The decision stated that if the act is committed in situations where the victim is not present or cannot directly become aware of it, the crime of "insult in absentia" would occur.

In this specific case, it was noted that in the message the defendant sent to his ex-wife, he "directly addressed his former mother-in-law, who is the participant, and acted with the intent to transmit the message."

For this reason, the decision emphasized that the defendant should be punished in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the crime of "insult via communication," and noted that it was unlawful to issue an acquittal based on an inappropriate rationale without considering this.