New development in the Narin Güran murder case! Prosecutor files an objection: 'He participated in the act'

In the appeal filed by the prosecutor's office to the Court of Cassation, it was requested that the court decision regarding Bahtiyar be overturned on the grounds that it was contrary to procedure and law, and that an aggravated life sentence be imposed on Bahtiyar.

Following the disappearance of 8-year-old Narin Güran on August 21 in the rural Tavşantepe neighborhood of the Bağlar district, and the discovery of her body 19 days later on September 8 in the Eğertutmaz Stream, Narin's mother Yüksel Güran, uncle Salim Güran, and brother Enes Güran, who were tried at the Diyarbakır 8th High Criminal Court, were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of ''Intentional killing of a child in complicity'', while their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar, who carried Narin's lifeless body to the stream where it was found, was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison.

On May 20, the prison sentences handed down by the 8th High Criminal Court against mother Yüksel, brother Enes, uncle Salim, and their neighbor Nevzat Bahtiyar were found to be in accordance with the law by a majority vote by the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice. In the decision, the presiding judge also added a dissenting opinion to the ruling, listing their justifications.

APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCE GIVEN TO NEVZAT BAHTİYAR

Following the decision, the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice prosecutor filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation regarding the sentence received by Nevzat Bahtiyar. In the appeal, the prosecutor stated that it was contrary to procedure and law to sentence Bahtiyar for the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing, or Altering Evidence of a Crime' based on a justification inconsistent with the facts, when he should have been sentenced for the crime of 'Intentional Killing of a Child in Complicity'.

"IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN THE ACT OF KILLING NARİN”

In the appeal petition submitted to the Presidency of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the prosecutor stated that Bahtiyar gave contradictory statements in order to escape the crimes charged against him. In the petition, the prosecutor included the following statements:

"When the actions, statements, and behaviors of the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar before and after the incident are evaluated as a whole, it is evident that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar acted in unity of thought and action with the other defendants from the very beginning and participated in the act of killing the victim Narin. Apart from all these explanations, even according to a partial acceptance; according to established Court of Cassation precedents and doctrine, participation in an act can be realized at the latest while the act is taking place (while the execution actions are continuing).

Even if it were accepted for a moment that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar came to the scene of the incident unaware of the act committed against the victim Narin at the initial stage (which our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office is of the opposite opinion, as stated above), the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar has a statement that 'after arriving at the scene, foamy water was coming from the mouth of the victim Narin, who was lying motionless on the ground',

Since the respiratory and circulatory system of a person who has lost their life will stop, it is not very possible for foamy water to continue to come out of their mouth, because the foam formed in the lungs is a condition that can only occur as a result of the combination of air taken into the body as a result of active respiratory movements and fluid that escapes/enters the lungs from the outside or fluid formed as a result of bleeding in the lungs due to being left without air/suffocation (it is confirmed by the Forensic Medicine Institute report that the victim lost her life as a result of being left without air by covering the mouth and nose area or applying pressure to the throat area),

The fact that foam continues to come out of the victim's mouth is also an indication that it constitutes a strong presumption that the negativity that occurred in the lungs in some way was being tried to be expelled by the body through reflex during the struggle for life. This indicates the following: When the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar arrived at the scene, the victim Narin was still struggling for life and trying to hold on to life; despite this, the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar 'did not make any effort to prevent the victim, who was struggling to survive, from dying, and did not inform the law enforcement or medical teams', on the contrary, due to the close friendship relationship between him and the defendant Salim, he made an effort to prevent the incident from being revealed by putting the victim Narin's body into a sack and hiding it in the stream and remaining silent until the body was found, and also caused the destruction of evidence by causing the body to remain in the water in the stream for a long time; it is understood that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar was in unity of thought and action with the other defendants and carried out the act together with the other defendants by establishing joint control over the act, and therefore he should be evaluated as a joint perpetrator.”

"COURT DECISION IS CONTRARY TO PROCEDURE AND LAW”

In the petition for appeal to the Court of Cassation, the prosecutor stated that Nevzat Bahtiyar should be punished for the crime of ''Intentional killing of a child in complicity'', and the following was recorded:

"It was requested that he be punished for this crime with the opinion on the merits, there was no narrative regarding the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing, or Altering Evidence of a Crime' in the indictment, and this procedural deficiency that occurred could not be overcome by giving additional defense, (moreover, no additional defense was given by the court of first instance, and this issue was not made a reason for reversal by the appellate court), for this reason, it was determined that this procedural deficiency was ignored, whereas a public lawsuit should have been filed with a new indictment on the grounds that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar committed the 'Crime of Destroying, Concealing, or Altering Evidence of a Crime' and merged with this file to establish a verdict. It was observed that the issue of contradiction between the short decision and the reasoned decision was not taken into account by not making a decision regarding the item/items registered in the judicial repository in the short decision at the hearing where the verdict was announced.

For the reasons explained, it is understood that it is contrary to procedure and law to decide that the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar be punished on the grounds that he committed the crime of 'Destroying, Concealing, or Altering Evidence of a Crime' with a justification that is not in accordance with the occurrence, whereas it should have been decided that he be punished on the grounds that he committed the crime of 'Intentional Killing of a Child in Complicity'. It is requested and submitted on behalf of the public that the said decision be examined and overturned against the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, with the opinion that it is not in accordance with procedure and law."