WHAT IS THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY (OFFENSE OF INJURY AGGRAVATED BY ITS CONSEQUENCE)?
If a person acts with the intent to injure another person, but the victim loses their life following the injury that occurs, the legal nature of the incident must be evaluated separately.
The occurrence of death as a result of every injury does not mean that the perpetrator will automatically be penalized for the offense of intentional killing or under TPC Art. 87/4.
Here, it must first be determined whether the perpetrator acted with the intent to kill or merely with the intent to injure. When it is accepted that the perpetrator’s aim was injury and the consequence of death was not intended, TPC Art. 87/4 may come to the fore. The Constitutional Court also emphasizes that the fundamental distinction between causing death as a result of intentional injury and intentional killing lies in the consequence toward which the perpetrator’s intent was directed.
TPC Art. 87/4 is the specific regulation regarding the consequence of death within the provisions governing injury aggravated by its consequence.
Accordingly, if death occurs as a result of intentional injury, the perpetrator will face an aggravated sanction if the statutory conditions materialize. However, establishing the outcome merely as “an injury occurred, subsequently the person died” is not sufficient here.
There must be causality between the injury and death, the consequence of death must be legally attributable to the injury act performed by the perpetrator, and there must be at least negligence (taksir) with respect to death.
Under TPC Art. 23, in offenses aggravated by their consequence in general, the condition is established that for liability for a heavier or different consequence, the perpetrator must have acted at least with negligence with respect to that consequence.
For this reason, in the application of TPC Art. 87/4, the questions “Is the death genuinely the result of the perpetrator’s injury act?” and “Is the perpetrator in a position to be held liable for the consequence of death?” carry great importance.
LEGAL NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
In doctrine, TPC Art. 87/4 is accepted as an offense aggravated by its consequence. There are two distinct subjective aspects regarding this offense. First, the perpetrator must act with intent directed at injuring the victim. Second, the perpetrator must possess at least negligence with respect to the consequence of death occurring as a result of the injury.
In other words, the perpetrator may have acted with the intent “I will injure you.” However, there must not be an intent to kill in the form of “I will kill you.” When direct intent or eventual intent (olası kast) exists with respect to the consequence of death, one must no longer speak of TPC Art. 87/4, but of the offense of intentional killing if its conditions are met. The Constitutional Court has also clearly set forth this distinction.
For this reason, when determining the legal characterization of the offense in a concrete case, the mere death of the victim is not taken into account alone. The perpetrator’s pre-incident conduct, the form of the attack, the instrument used, the targeted bodily region, the number of blows, the development of the incident, and post-incident behaviors are evaluated together.
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
For TPC Art. 87/4 to be applied, the following conditions must generally materialize together:
1-) The presence of an act of intentional injury
2-) The presence of a causal link between the injury and death
3-) The consequence of death being the result of the injury performed by the perpetrator
4-) The presence of at least negligence with respect to death
5-) The concrete case not transforming into the offense of intentional killing
The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) has also rendered decisions establishing that with respect to death resulting from intentional injury, the perpetrator must act with the intent to injure, the injury must fall within the scope prescribed by law, a causal link must exist between the act and death, and fault at the degree of at least negligence must be present regarding the consequence of death. (See Decision of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 05.07.2023, Docket No. 2022/347, Decision No. 2023/381).
THE STATE OF THE OFFENSE OF INTENTIONAL INJURY RESULTING IN DEATH?
TPC Art. 87/4 is regulated with respect to intentional injury acts based on the first and third paragraphs of TPC Art. 86. In contrast, minor injuries under TPC Art. 86/2 whose effect can be remedied with simple medical intervention are not directly included within the scope of TPC Art. 87/4. For this reason, it is not possible to evaluate every incident in the form of “I slightly injured someone, but the person later lost their life” under TPC Art. 87/4.
WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE?
Particular care must be taken here due to the presence on the internet of old penalty amounts that are no longer in force. An amendment was made to TPC Art. 87 by Law No. 7550 on June 4, 2025. According to the current TPC Art. 87/4, if death occurs as a result of intentional injury:
- For injury falling under TPC Art. 86/1: imprisonment from 10 years to 14 years,
- For qualified/aggravated injury falling under TPC Art. 86/3: imprisonment from 14 years to 18 years is prescribed.
Therefore, information in old internet content stating “8-12 years” or “12-18 years” does not reflect current penalty amounts. In determining the penalty amount, the specifics of the concrete case, the fault of the perpetrator, and the general provisions of the TPC are also taken into account.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTIONAL KILLING AND CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY?
One of the most fundamental problems in these offenses is determining toward what the perpetrator’s intent was directed.
For example, if the perpetrator attacked vital organs of the victim repeatedly with a knife, desired the consequence of death during the attack, or explicitly accepted the risk of death, evaluating the incident in terms of intentional killing may arise.
Conversely, if the perpetrator’s aim was to injure the victim and the consequence of death occurred following this injury, TPC Art. 87/4 may be evaluated.
This distinction is determined based on the perpetrator’s actual intent reflected in their external conduct.
For example, matters such as:
- The nature of the attack,
- The weapon or instrument used,
- Which region of the body the action was directed toward,
- The number and severity of blows,
- The animosity between the parties,
- Pre-incident threats,
- Post-incident conduct,
- Whether assistance to the injured person was prevented or not
are evaluated together. The Constitutional Court also accepts that in determining intent, the perpetrator’s pre-incident, during-incident, and post-incident conduct must be taken into account.
WHAT DOES NEGLIGENCE MEAN WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSEQUENCE OF DEATH?
Pursuant to TPC Art. 23, in offenses aggravated by their consequence, the perpetrator must possess fault at least at the level of negligence in order to be held liable for the heavier consequence that occurred. For this reason, the mere presence of a causal link is not sufficient.
For example, the perpetrator may have injured the victim, and the victim may subsequently have lost their life due to a completely different, extraordinary cause.
In such a situation, an automatic conclusion cannot be established in the form of: “The perpetrator injured, the victim died, therefore the perpetrator is liable for the death.” Whether the death was foreseeable and whether the perpetrator acted in breach of the required duty of care and attention must also be examined. In incidents where negligence is entirely absent regarding the consequence of death, liability will not arise under TPC Art. 87/4.
WHAT IS THE CAUSAL LINK (NEXUS)?
Causality refers to the cause-and-effect relationship between the conduct performed by the perpetrator and the resulting consequence.
For example: Suppose a person severely injures the victim by stabbing them; while the victim is being transferred to the hospital, the ambulance gets into a traffic accident, and the victim loses their life due to this accident. At first glance, the perpetrator’s injury act lies at the beginning of the chain of events. However, whether the death can be accepted directly as the result of the perpetrator’s injury act must be examined separately here.
In the allegation that death occurred as a result of intentional injury, the following question must be answered: Did the perpetrator’s injury act cause the death of the victim? While answering this question, many factors must be evaluated together.
Indeed, in case files where the medical cause of death must be determined, the Forensic Medicine Institute (Adli Tıp Kurumu) report, expert opinion, hospital records, autopsy report, and other medical documents may carry importance.
The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation has also rendered decisions recognizing that whether a causal link exists between injury and death is a medical issue and that expert opinion carries importance. (For this approach, see Decision of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 08.12.2022, Docket No. 2021/130, Decision No. 2022/780).
However, the medical report and the court’s legal evaluation are not the same thing. The expert witness can set forth the medical cause of death. But the court ultimately decides whether this death can be attributed to the perpetrator in the sense of criminal law.
WHAT IS OBJECTIVE ATTRIBUTION (IMPUTATION)?
Objective attribution, although a highly technical concept, can be simply expressed as follows: A death being factually linked to the perpetrator’s conduct is one matter; this death being legally attributed to the perpetrator is another matter.
For example, if a completely extraordinary event occurs after the victim is injured and death takes place due to this event, whether the death can be accepted as the product of the perpetrator can be examined separately, despite the presence of a connection between the initial act and death.
For this reason, when examining the case file, it is important for an attorney not to be content solely with the question “Is there a causal link?”, but to also examine whether the death is genuinely legally attributable to the perpetrator’s injury act.
WHAT IS THE DANGER CONNECTION SPECIFIC TO THE OFFENSE TYPE?
The injury act performed by the perpetrator must not merely have caused death in any arbitrary way; it must also have led to the danger inherent in the offense of intentional injury materializing in the form of death.
For example, if internal bleeding occurs as a result of an injury caused by a perpetrator who injures a person with a knife and the victim loses their life due to this, the death can be evaluated as the realization of the danger directly carried by the injury.
Conversely, if the action performed by the perpetrator remains minor in terms of injury and death occurs due to the realization of a completely different danger, a different legal evaluation can be made.
SIMPLE INJURY + SEVERE ILLNESS + DEATH: IS THE PERPETRATOR LIABLE?
One of the issues creating the most problems in practice is pre-existing diseases of the victim contributing to the fatal process.
For example, the victim is a heart patient. The perpetrator punches the victim. The victim suffers a heart attack due to the stress and physical exertion created by the incident and loses their life. Here, the conclusion that the victim died solely due to the blow cannot be reached.
First, the nature of the injury, whether the perpetrator knew of the victim’s illness, whether the consequence of death was foreseeable, and whether the injury act was of the severity required under TPC Art. 87/4 must be investigated. Therefore, the victim’s pre-existing illness is of a highly significant nature for the trial.
DOES THE VICTIM’S PRE-EXISTING ILLNESS ALWAYS MAKE THE PERPETRATOR LIABLE?
No. If the victim’s pre-existing illness contributed to the occurrence of death, this circumstance does not automatically eliminate the perpetrator’s liability, nor does it automatically increase it.
For example, bone fractures and their complications may have been influential in the occurrence of death; at the same time, osteoporosis or cardiovascular disease may be present in the victim.
In such cases, the relationship between medical causes and liability in terms of criminal law must be evaluated separately. (The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2024, Docket No. 2022/6614, Decision No. 2024/1956 is remarkable in this regard).
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE VICTIM’S OWN CONDUCT CAUSES DEATH?
In every incident, death does not occur under the direct impact of the blow administered by the perpetrator. Sometimes, the subsequent conduct of the victim or a third party may play a role in the emergence of death.
For example, a victim fleeing from the perpetrator’s attack may have run onto the road out of fear and died in a traffic accident. Or the victim may have attempted to escape by breaking a building’s window to get away from the attack and lost their life as a result of an injury sustained during this attempt. In such incidents, the causal chain between injury and death becomes quite complex.
For this reason, all stages in the emergence of death must be examined.
DOES THE CONDUCT OF A THIRD PARTY INTERRUPT CAUSALITY?
The involvement of a third party in the fatal incident is also a frequently encountered problem.
For example, the intervention of healthcare personnel while the victim is being taken to the hospital, the physical intervention of another person, or a third party creating a new danger may arise.
Not every third-party conduct interrupts the causal chain. If the third party has created a completely independent and unforeseeable new danger, attributing the death to the perpetrator may not be possible. In contrast, if the conduct of the third party is a continuation of the dangerous process initiated by the perpetrator, liability may continue. This distinction is of great importance.
DOES MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ELIMINATE THE PERPETRATOR’S LIABILITY IN DEATH?
This question is particularly important regarding TPC Art. 87/4. A person may be injured, taken to the hospital, and have lost their life following medical intervention performed there.
Here, an automatic conclusion cannot be drawn in the form of: “There is medical error, therefore the initial person who injured is not liable.”
The nature of the medical intervention, the gravity of the error committed, and how the relationship between injury and death was affected must be examined. In the reference article, it is stated that medical error, as a rule, does not eliminate the attribution link between injury and death; however, if gross medical malpractice exists, a different evaluation may be adopted.
For this reason, in a case file:
- Emergency room records,
- Surgical reports,
- Epicrisis / discharge summaries,
- Autopsy report,
- Forensic Medicine Institute report,
- Expert assessments,
- Chronology of medical intervention
must be examined in detail.
DO POST-INCIDENT INFECTIONS AND COMPLICATIONS ATTRIBUTE DEATH TO THE PERPETRATOR?
In the event that infection, organ failure, internal bleeding, embolism, or other complications develop following the injury, the same basic question must be asked: Is this complication a continuation of the medical process triggered by the inflicted injury?
For example, the fact that the victim underwent surgery following internal bleeding caused by stabbing and subsequently lost their life due to a developing complication does not mean that the connection between the initial injury and death is spontaneously eliminated.
Here, the medical process must be evaluated as a whole. In particular, what stages the victim went through during the hospital process and the definitive cause of death carry importance. For this reason, it should not be forgotten that the time difference between the incident and death is not decisive on its own in TPC Art. 87/4 files. A victim losing their life days or weeks after the incident does not, on its own, eliminate the causal link between injury and death.
WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS WHERE CAUSALITY IS BROKEN / INTERRUPTED?
Interruption of the causal chain may come to the fore if an independent event occurring after the perpetrator’s injury act produces the consequence of death entirely on its own.
For example, if the perpetrator injured the victim, but another completely independent and unforeseeable event from the injury caused the victim’s death, a different legal evaluation can be made.
What genuinely needs to be asked and answered must be: “Did the subsequent event truly and completely extinguish the causal process initiated by the perpetrator?”
WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE CAUSALITY?
If multiple independent acts are simultaneously in a position to cause the occurrence of a death, the discussion of alternative causality may arise.
For example, suppose two separate perpetrators fired at the victim independently of each other and both shots were lethal on their own.
The inability to determine which bullet caused the death can complicate classical causality analysis. In the reference article, specific evaluations are made regarding alternative causality in such cases, and it is emphasized that whether the perpetrator’s acts were genuinely capable of causing the consequence of death must be determined separately. In such incidents, the principle of the benefit of the doubt (in dubio pro reo) also gains particular importance.
WHAT IS CUMULATIVE CAUSALITY?
In situations where the independent actions of multiple individuals are not sufficient on their own to produce death, but death occurs through the combination of these actions, cumulative causality may be in question.
For example: The injury inflicted by A is not sufficient on its own for death. The act performed by B is also not sufficient on its own for death. However, when the acts of A and B combine, death occurs. In this case, the role of each conduct in the formation of death must be evaluated separately.
IS THE INITIAL PERPETRATOR ALWAYS LIABLE IN CASE OF ERROR BY HEALTHCARE PERSONNEL?
No. An error occurring during medical intervention at the hospital following a person’s injury does not create automatic liability for the initial perpetrator, nor does it automatically remove liability.
Whether the medical intervention was:
- An ordinary medical risk,
- A simple error,
- Gross negligence,
- A completely independent new danger
is important. Therefore, in case files involving medical intervention in particular, expert examination in terms of both criminal law and medical law is of great importance.
IS CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY THROUGH OMISSION POSSIBLE?
Intentional injury is mostly committed through an active act. However, in certain incidents, a person may have a legal duty to intervene, and injury may occur as a result of the failure to fulfill this duty.
For example, incidents where a person having a duty of care and supervision deliberately does not intervene, fails to perform the necessary conduct, or acts negligently in a manner that aggravates the victim’s existing condition can be examined according to concrete conditions. However, regarding omissive conduct, the person must additionally possess a legal obligation to intervene.
THE IMPORTANCE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE REPORT IN CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
In such case files, the Forensic Medicine Institute report is often of critical importance.
Because the court must specifically answer the following questions:
- What is the nature of the injury?
- What is the medical cause of death?
- Is there medical causality between the injury and death?
- Is there an effect of pre-existing diseases?
- What is the role of complications in the occurrence of the fatal incident?
- Did medical intervention have an impact on death?
Each of these questions may require separate evaluation. However, the Forensic Medicine report is also not in the nature of an “automatic judgment” for the court. The court evaluates the report together with the other evidence.
In case files containing deficient, contradictory, or non-corroborating medical reports, obtaining a new report or expanding the expert examination may arise. In Court of Cassation practice, the importance of determining the medical connection between injury and death through expert opinions is also emphasized.
COURT OF CASSATION PRACTICE IN CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
1-) Court of Cassation 1st Criminal Chamber, Docket No. 2022/6614, Decision No. 2024/1956, 21.03.2024
Death occurred following an injury caused by the defendant pushing the victim. Although it was stated in the Forensic Medicine assessment that the victim’s existing osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease contributed to the fatal process, the Court of Cassation adopted the legal approach that the incident must be evaluated under TPC Art. 87/4.
This decision is important in showing that the existence of a pre-existing disease does not eliminate the perpetrator’s liability on its own. However, what penalty amount the decision will reach in terms of current legislation must also be evaluated over current TPC Art. 87.
2-) Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, Docket No. 2014/218, Decision No. 2016/256, 10.05.2016
In this decision, the occurrence of death following an injury act directed at a victim with heart disease by the perpetrator was evaluated.
The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation reached the conclusion that because the act remained within the scope of TPC Art. 86/2, TPC Art. 87/4 could not be applied; however, a separate evaluation had to be made regarding the foreseeability of the consequence of death.
The decision is particularly one of the important examples to be considered in the combination of “simple injury + pre-existing illness + death.”
3-) Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Docket No. 2012/4070, Decision No. 2014/13874, 05.06.2014
The connection between the victim’s existing cardiovascular condition, trauma, and death was evaluated.
The Court of Cassation set forth that the relationship between the existing illness and the incident in the occurrence of death must be evaluated not only through the medical report, but also in terms of whether it constitutes a legally meaningful causal relationship in criminal law.
4-) Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, Docket No. 2021/130, Decision No. 2022/780, 08.12.2022
In this decision, it is emphasized that the causal link between injury and death is a medical matter and that expert opinion carries importance. This approach gains importance particularly in incidents where the cause of death is dependent on multiple factors.
EVIDENCE IN CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
In such lawsuits, relying solely on witness testimonies is often not sufficient.
Depending on the nature of the case file;
- Forensic Medicine Institute reports,
- Autopsy report,
- Hospital records,
- Surgical and epicrisis documents,
- Emergency room records,
- Camera / CCTV footage,
- Telephone records,
- Text messages / correspondence,
- Crime scene investigation report,
- Criminalistic forensic examinations regarding weapons or instruments used,
- Witness statements,
- Pre-incident and post-incident footage
may carry importance. In particular, in cases resulting in death, the post-incident medical process must be investigated as thoroughly as the moment of the incident.
For example, if the victim died not immediately after the incident but two weeks later, examining only the camera footage of the incident moment may not be sufficient.
The hospital process, complications, administered treatment, and cause of death must also be included in the file.
MOST FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED LEGAL ISSUES IN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
In practice, the following problems arise in particular:
1-) Whether the perpetrator’s intent was directed toward injury or killing
2-) Whether a medical causal link exists between the injury and death
3-) The role of the victim’s pre-existing illness in death
4-) The impact of hospital medical intervention on the fatal process
5-) The impact of a third party’s act on the causal chain
6-) The impact of the victim’s own conduct on the consequence of death
7-) Whether death was foreseeable
😎 Whether the injury is a minor injury within the scope of TPC Art. 86/2
9-) Whether the provisions on qualified/aggravated injury under TPC Art. 86/3 are present
10-) Whether a deficient or contradictory forensic report can be taken as the basis of judgment
For this reason, TPC Art. 87/4 files may require a far more comprehensive evidentiary and legal characterization study compared to an ordinary intentional injury file.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
In some incidents, it may be concluded that the perpetrator acted with the intent to injure, but the occurring death was not foreseen or must be subjected to a different legal evaluation. This distinction is even more important particularly in minor injuries remaining under TPC Art. 86/2.
For example, if the action performed by the perpetrator constituted an injury that could be remedied by simple medical intervention, but death occurred due to the victim’s pre-existing severe illness, whether the incident will be evaluated within the scope of TPC Art. 87/4, negligent homicide, or merely intentional injury must be determined according to the concrete case.
IS “VICTIM’S FAULT” TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY?
Certain behaviors committed by the victim during the incident may play a role in the fatal process.
For example, it is possible for the victim to lose balance while fleeing, move toward a dangerous place, or engage in certain behaviors during the treatment process.
However, not every behavior of the victim interrupts the link between the perpetrator and death.
Here, whether the conduct:
- Was foreseeable,
- Was a natural consequence of the danger created by the perpetrator,
- Created a completely independent new danger
must be evaluated. In particular, in incidents where the victim’s own conduct contributed to the death outcome, evaluating the case file merely as “the victim was also at fault” is not legally sufficient.
COMPETENT COURT IN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
In lawsuits initiated under TPC Art. 87/4, the competent court is addressed within the scope of the Assize Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) to be evaluated together with the charged offense and other offenses in the concrete case. In particular, due to the high current penalty thresholds in TPC Art. 87/4, this offense falls well outside the limits of simple criminal proceedings or the simple trial procedure. However, if other offenses are also present in the file, jurisdiction and the procedure to be applied must be determined by evaluating all charges together.
DOES ARREST (PRETRIAL DETENTION) ARISE IN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY?
The possibility of arrest in this offense is not evaluated solely from the name of the crime. Whether strong suspicion of crime and statutory arrest grounds exist under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) is examined separately. Nonetheless, due to the severity of the prison sentences prescribed in TPC Art. 87/4 and the nature of the offense, facing a request for arrest during the investigation stage is possible.
In this case, matters such as:
- Existing evidence,
- The manner of occurrence of the incident,
- The defendant’s permanent residence,
- Flight risk (suspicion of absconding),
- Possibility of tampering with evidence,
- Possibility of exerting pressure on the victim or witnesses
must also be evaluated. There is no rule that automatic arrest will be made in every TPC Art. 87/4 file.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IN THE OFFENSE OF CAUSING DEATH AS A RESULT OF INTENTIONAL INJURY
1-) I beat someone up, and the person died later. Is TPC Art. 87/4 strictly applied?
No. First, it must be determined whether the perpetrator acted with the intent to injure, causality between injury and death, negligence with respect to death, and whether the injury is of the nature falling under TPC Art. 87/4.
2-) If the victim had pre-existing heart disease, will the perpetrator still be liable?
One cannot say an automatic yes or no. The relationship of the disease to the incident, whether the perpetrator knew of this condition, the foreseeability of death, and the nature of the injury must be evaluated together.
3-) If the victim died in the hospital, is the initial attacker liable for the death?
It depends on the nature of the medical intervention and the hospital process. Normal medical process and ordinary complications are not evaluated in the same way as an independent and gross medical error.
4-) If the victim dies weeks after the incident, can TPC Art. 87/4 be applied?
Yes, if a legal and medical connection exists between death and injury, the long time interval does not preclude TPC Art. 87/4 on its own.
5-) Does the perpetrator get acquitted when the definitive cause of death cannot be determined?
Not always. The inability to definitively determine the cause of death is not the same as the complete inability to demonstrate the connection between the perpetrator’s act and death.
6-) If the perpetrator says “I didn’t want to kill,” will TPC Art. 87/4 be applied?
This statement alone is not sufficient. The perpetrator’s intent is determined from pre-incident, during-incident, and post-incident conduct.
7-) If death occurred as a result of a knife injury, is TPC Art. 87/4 automatically applied?
No. The use of a knife does not definitively show the perpetrator’s intent to injure or intent to kill on its own. The entire incident must be evaluated.
😎 If the victim also made a mistake during the incident, does the perpetrator escape liability?
No. The legal effect of the victim’s conduct in the fatal process is examined separately. Not every victim behavior interrupts the causal link.
9-) Two people injured the victim, and it is unknown which blow caused the death. What happens?
This situation must be evaluated according to the alternative or cumulative causality characteristics of the incident. The number of perpetrators, the nature of the acts, the shared intent to commit a crime, and medical evidence are important.
10-) If I accepted the consequence of death with eventual intent (olası kast), will TPC Art. 87/4 be applied?
No. If it is accepted that eventual intent existed with respect to the consequence of death, the offense of intentional killing may arise.
11-) What is the current penalty of TPC Art. 87/4?
As of 17 August 2026, imprisonment from 10 to 14 years is prescribed for injury falling under TPC Art. 86/1, and imprisonment from 14 to 18 years for injury falling under TPC Art. 86/3 within the scope of TPC Art. 87/4.
12-) It says 8-12 years on the internet, which one is correct?
Old information exists. An amendment was made to TPC Art. 87/4 on June 4, 2025, and the penalty amounts were increased. Therefore, the text in force must be taken as the basis in current cases.
13-) If an injury that can be remedied by simple medical intervention results in death, is TPC Art. 87/4 strictly applied?
No. Due to the statutory structure of TPC Art. 87/4, minor injuries under TPC Art. 86/2 must be evaluated separately.
14-) Is the Forensic Medicine report important in the offense of TPC Art. 87/4?
Yes. It is one of the important pieces of evidence, particularly in determining the cause of death, the medical connection between injury and death, and the effect of complications.
15-) Does the initial perpetrator get acquitted if there is a doctor’s error?
Automatically no. The nature of the error, its gravity, and its impact on the causal process between injury and death must be investigated.
16-) In this offense, is the Suspension of the Announcement of the Verdict (HAGB) possible?
Regarding whether HAGB can be applied, not only the statutory name of the crime, but the amount of prison sentence rendered in the concrete case, the defendant’s past criminal record, and current conditions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) must be taken into account.
CONCLUSION
The occurrence of death as a result of intentional injury is a situation that can produce extremely grave consequences in terms of criminal law. However, the occurrence of the consequence of death is not sufficient on its own to hold the perpetrator liable under TPC Art. 87/4.
First, the perpetrator must have acted with the intent to injure, not to kill. In addition, a causal link must exist between the inflicted injury and death, and the consequence of death must be foreseeable and attributable to the perpetrator at least at the level of negligence.
In particular, if the victim has a pre-existing disease, medical intervention is performed after the incident, complications develop, third parties become involved in the incident, or the victim’s own conduct is influential in the fatal process, the legal evaluation of the file becomes even more complex.
In such cases, reaching a conclusion by relying merely on a single sentence used in the Forensic Medicine Institute report or a single statement of the defendant is not correct. The medical and legal aspects of the incident must be examined together.
Furthermore, current penalty amounts regarding TPC Art. 87/4 must also be specifically taken into account. Following the amendment made on June 4, 2025, imprisonment from 10 years to 14 years is prescribed if death occurs as a result of injury under TPC Art. 86/1; and imprisonment from 14 years to 18 years if death occurs as a result of qualified injury under TPC Art. 86/3.
In conclusion, one of the most important issues in files concerning death as a result of intentional injury is determining not merely whether death is “a consequence that occurred after the injury,” but whether it is “the result of the perpetrator’s injury act in the sense of criminal law and an outcome attributable to them.”
For this reason, in every incident, the chain of evaluation in the form of: intent to injure → nature of injury → causality → foreseeability of death → objective attribution → legal characterization of the offense → penalty must be examined as a whole.
IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL (ATTORNEY)
Case files where death occurs as a result of intentional injury are among the most technical disputes with the gravest consequences in criminal law.
While extremely serious criminal liability arises on the one hand due to the victim losing their life, on the other hand, from which consequence and under what conditions the perpetrator can be held liable must be correctly determined.
In particular, the incident resulting in death may require the case file to be evaluated not only in terms of criminal law, but also in terms of forensic medicine and medical law.
For this reason, examining:
- Autopsy report,
- Forensic Medicine Institute reports,
- Hospital records,
- Medical intervention process,
- Crime scene evidence,
- Camera / CCTV recordings,
- Witness statements
together carries great importance.
From the perpetrator’s perspective, whether the intent to kill was present, which TPC provision the injury falls under, whether the consequence of death was foreseeable, and at what stage the causal link continued or was severed must be evaluated with care.
From the perspective of the victim’s relatives, uncovering the true cause of death, evaluating deficient or contradictory medical reports, correctly characterizing the incident, and collecting necessary evidence in a timely manner are exceptionally critical.
It must not be forgotten that in TPC Art. 87/4 files, sometimes a single medical finding, a single camera recording, or a complication developing after the incident may possess the significance to alter the legal nature of the crime.
For this reason, handling the file in all its aspects from the initial stage of the investigation and obtaining legal support from a criminal defense attorney specialized in the field is of immense importance, both for protecting victim rights and ensuring that the suspect or defendant is held liable only for consequences that can legally be attributed to them.