KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Crime and Punishment of Negligent Manslaughter (TCK Art. 85): Fault, Conscious Negligence and HAGB Causing Death by Negligence, Determination of Fault, Criminal Consequences and Trial Procedure within the Scope of Turkish Penal Code Art. 85. This guide has been updated as of 2026, based on the Turkish Penal Code, amendments to Law No. 7589 and the Supreme Court case law.
A person who causes the death of a person through negligence is punished with imprisonment from two to six years; If more than one person dies as a result of the same act, or if at least one person dies and others are injured, the penalty is imprisonment from two to fifteen years. In cases of conscious negligence, where the perpetrator foresees the outcome but does not want it, the penalty is increased from one-third to one-half, and the prison sentence cannot be converted into a judicial fine. The crime is not subject to complaint, it is not included in the scope of mediation, and the statute of limitations for the case is fifteen years. With the Law No. 7589, which came into force on July 31, 2026, the institution of postponement of the announcement of the verdict was rearranged; The two-year limit was preserved, the possibility of repairing the damage in installments was introduced, and the possibility of appeal against these decisions was kept open.
The first question that comes to mind after a fatal traffic accident, a work accident or a medical intervention is why a criminal trial is being carried out when there is no intent. Criminal law also considers failure to exercise due care and attention to prevent a foreseeable outcome as grounds for liability. For this reason, the fact that the death outcome was not desired does not, by itself, eliminate criminal liability.
The main discussion in the files focuses on two points: whether the perpetrator is at fault or not, and if so, whether this fault will be considered simple negligence or conscious negligence. The answer to the second question determines the entire chain, from increasing the penalty to the possibility of converting it into a judicial fine, and from there to postponing the announcement of the verdict. The guide covers the concept of negligence, elements of the crime, penalties, determination of fault, trial procedure and the regime of postponing the announcement of the changed verdict in 2026.
Negligence is defined in Article 22 of the Turkish Penal Code as the unforeseen realization of the result specified in the legal definition of the crime due to violation of the duty of care and diligence. Acts committed negligently are punished only in cases clearly stated in the law.
In order for the crime of reckless homicide to occur, three elements must be present together.
An act contrary to the duty of care and attention: The obligation may arise from law, regulation, professional rules or the ordinary course of life. This includes violation of traffic rules, failure to take occupational safety measures or failure to comply with medical standards.
Occurrence of death: If the outcome does not occur and the victim is only injured, the act is considered negligent injury.
Causality and predictability: There must be a connection between the behavior and death, and the result must be such that the perpetrator could foresee it under concrete circumstances. No liability arises for consequences that are not objectively possible to predict.
The perpetrator's action must be voluntary; The result of a non-voluntary action cannot be considered negligence. On the other hand, the result of a voluntary action is not intended, and in this respect, negligence is clearly distinguished from intent.
The law provides two separate penalty ranges for the death of a single person and multiple consequences related to the same act.
Causing the death of a person through negligence Article 85/1 Imprisonment from 2 to 6 years
Death of more than one person with the same act, or injury of one or more people with the death of one person, Article 85/2 Imprisonment from 2 years to 15 years
The above penalties are increased from one third to half if the act is committed through conscious negligence, Article 22/3.
In order for the second paragraph to apply, the consequences must arise from the same negligent act. If there are also injured people in a fatal accident, this paragraph applies even if there is a single death, and the penalty range widens significantly.
In determining the basic penalty, the intensity of the offender's fault, the severity of the damage caused and the manner in which the act was committed are taken into account. The Supreme Court considers determining the penalty from the lower limit as a contradiction, despite the establishment of a justification that emphasizes the intensity of the fault and the severity of the damage, and overturns such provisions.
The distinction is based on a single criterion: was the outcome foreseen? In simple negligence, the perpetrator failed to foresee the foreseeable outcome. In conscious negligence, the outcome was foreseen, but the perpetrator thought that the outcome would not occur, relying on his own skill, luck or the suitability of the conditions.
The consequences of this distinction are severe. In cases of conscious negligence, the penalty is increased from one-third to one-half, and the prison sentence cannot be converted into a judicial fine. The increase in the penalty amount may completely change the outcome of the case, as it causes the two-year limit required for the postponement of the announcement of the verdict to be exceeded.
Typical situations that lead to conscious negligence in practice include driving with high levels of alcohol, running a red light, excessive speed, entering the wrong direction, transporting without wearing winter tires even though it is mandatory, and continuing production despite occupational safety warnings. In these cases, it is accepted that the perpetrator knows the risk, but still trusts that the outcome will not occur.
Form of Fault Was the Result Foretold? Was the result desired?
The border between possible intent and conscious negligence is the most controversial area of negligence cases. If it is concluded that the perpetrator was indifferent to the consequences, the act is considered intentional murder and the penalty increases to life imprisonment. This discussion frequently comes to the fore in incidents such as shooting in a crowded area or driving at excessive speed and in a reckless manner in a residential area.
The scope of liability in negligent crimes is shaped by determining the fault rate. In practice, a distinction is made between primary defect, secondary defect and perfection. The fact that the perpetrator is found to be at fault provides a strong justification for bringing the basic penalty closer to the lower limit.
Fault detection is mostly based on expert reports. Accident report in traffic incidents, vehicle inspection and brake trace examinations, speed calculations and camera images; Occupational safety expert reports, risk assessment documents and training records in case of work accidents; In medical malpractice claims, the reports received from the Forensic Medicine Institute and university hospitals are decisive.
In cases where more than one person is at fault, the fault is shared between the parties. The victim's own fault does not completely eliminate criminal liability; An acquittal can only occur in cases where the causal link is severed. The same evaluation is made in cases where the result is solely caused by the seriously faulty behavior of a third party.
The report determining the fault rate is the most critical document of the trial. If the technical data in the report conflicts with the scope of the file, the distribution of defects is not justified, or the examination is incomplete, an additional report or a report from a new expert panel should be requested. For medical files, the Forensic Medicine Institute's higher committee review may also be requested.
Fatal traffic accidents: The most common form of crime. Facts such as alcohol level, speed, red light violation and seat belt use affect both the fault rate and the assessment of conscious negligence.
Work accidents: Liability assessment is made separately for the employer, the employer's representative, the occupational safety expert and the field supervisor. It is investigated whether the necessary precautions have been taken and whether the training and supervision obligations have been fulfilled.
Medical malpractice: In order for liability to arise, the violation of medical standards and the connection between this violation and death must be demonstrated. The distinction between complication and error is decisive.
Careless use of a firearm: Hunting accidents and deaths occurring while cleaning or carrying the weapon are evaluated in this context.
Construction and maintenance defects: Persons with oversight duties may be held responsible for deaths caused by falling parts of the building, unprotected pits, or unmaintained elevators.
The crime of reckless homicide is not dependent on a complaint; The prosecutor's office initiates an investigation ex officio as soon as it learns of the crime, and withdrawing from the complaint does not drop the public case. The crime is not among the crimes within the scope of mediation. On the other hand, the perpetrator's compensation for the damage is taken into account in terms of the reasons for discretionary reduction and the conditions for postponing the announcement of the verdict.
The statute of limitations for the case is fifteen years. The competent court is the criminal court of first instance for the files within the scope of the first paragraph, and the high criminal court for the files within the scope of the second paragraph where the maximum sentence exceeds ten years. Relatives of the victims can become parties to the proceedings by participating in the public lawsuit.
The most decisive institution for the defendant in reckless homicide cases is the postponement of the announcement of the verdict. If a decision is made, the verdict will not have legal consequences and if the audit period is completed without any problems, the case will be dismissed.
This institution remained in limbo for a long time after the Constitutional Court's annulment decision; vacancy, dated July 31, 2026
It has been filled in with Article 15 of Law No. 7589 published in the Official Gazette. The regulation rewrote the fifth to fourteenth paragraphs of Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aspects of the new regime that directly concern negligence death files are as follows:
The limit on imprisonment of two years or less and judicial fines has been maintained.
The audit period is determined as five years.
A commitment opportunity has been introduced to compensate for the damage in installments.
The right of appeal has been kept open against the decision.
Crimes of torture, torment and ill-treatment committed by public officials due to their duties are excluded from the scope.
The ability to compensate the damage in installments constitutes an important innovation in practice in terms of mortal files. In cases where the compensation for loss of support reached high amounts, not being able to cover the damage all at once could actually prevent benefiting from this institution.
On the other hand, the applicability of the institution depends on the sentence not exceeding two years. Exceeding this limit is a common result, as the penalty is increased when conscious negligence is accepted and the basic penalty is determined higher in cases within the scope of the second paragraph.
The fourth paragraph of Article 50 of the Turkish Penal Code allows the prison sentence imposed for negligent crimes to be converted into a judicial fine, even if it is long-term. This provision is a separate regulation specific to negligent crimes. However, in accordance with the last sentence of the paragraph, this opportunity cannot be used in case of conscious negligence.
In cases where it is not decided to postpone the announcement of the verdict, the postponement of prison sentences of two years or less may also be on the agenda. In case of postponement, the sentence is not executed in the execution institution, but the conviction continues and is recorded in the criminal record. In this respect, postponement is an institution that has different and more severe consequences than postponing the announcement of the verdict.
Independent of the criminal trial, the relatives of the deceased who are deprived of support can claim compensation for loss of support, and the relatives can claim non-pecuniary compensation. Claims within the scope of compulsory liability insurance in traffic accidents are primarily directed to the insurance company; In case of work accidents, the employer's liability and the Social Security Institution's recourse also come to the fore.
Although the fault rate given in a criminal case is not binding on the civil court as a rule, it forms a strong basis for the determination of material facts. For this reason, it is necessary to carry out the two processes by looking at each other in order for the results to be consistent.
The driver, who was driving above the speed limit in a residential area, hit a pedestrian crossing the pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian died in the hospital. A passenger in the vehicle was also injured in the same accident. It was determined that the driver was not drunk, but the speed limit at the scene was significantly exceeded. The driver remained at the scene after the accident and called for help for the injured.
Since the death of one person and the injury of another person occur with the same act, the act is evaluated within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Turkish Penal Code and the penalty range is imprisonment from two to fifteen years. For this reason, the trial is heard in the high criminal court. Whether exceeding the speed limit constitutes conscious negligence is further discussed based on the degree of exceedance and road conditions; If conscious negligence is accepted, the penalty is increased from one-third to one-half and the possibility of converting it into a judicial fine is eliminated. Whether the pedestrian is at fault or not is determined by expert examination, and the distribution of fault is taken as basis in determining the basic penalty. The fact that the driver stayed at the scene and called for help is a fact that can be evaluated in favor of discretionary discount reasons.
If the relatives of the victims do not complain, won't a lawsuit be filed?
Since the crime does not depend on a complaint, the prosecutor's office conducts an ex officio investigation and files a public lawsuit. Dropping the complaint does not drop the case; However, compensation for the damage and reconciliation of the parties are taken into account in determining the penalty and the conditions for postponing the announcement of the verdict.
Is mediation applied in the crime of reckless homicide?
No. The crime was not counted among the crimes within the scope of reconciliation. Since the crime of negligent injury is subject to mediation, the two crimes differ from each other in this aspect.
Can the case be closed without going to prison? If the sentenced sentence does not exceed two years, the announcement of the verdict may be postponed, the sentence may be postponed, or in cases of simple negligence, it may be converted into a judicial fine. When conscious negligence is accepted, these opportunities narrow significantly.
What does a low defect rate provide?
Acceptance of secondary fault constitutes a justification for bringing the basic penalty closer to the lower limit and, accordingly, increases the possibility of benefiting from other institutions by postponing the announcement of the verdict.
Does paying traffic insurance affect the penalty? The insurance company's payment may be taken into account in evaluating the condition of compensation for the damage. However, the nature and scope of the payment and whether there is any remaining damage to the relatives of the victims are also examined.
Is the employer solely responsible for a work accident?
No. Liability assessment is made separately for the employer's representative, occupational safety expert, field manager and other persons who are negligent. Fault is apportioned according to who has the responsibility for supervision and control.
Accepting the expert report without questioning: Since the defect rate determines the outcome of the file, reports that contradict technical data or are unjustified should be objected to in a timely manner.
Failure to respond to the qualification of conscious negligence: If it is not discussed with concrete facts whether the result was actually foreseen, the penalty is subject to increase and the possibility of converting it into a fine is lost.
Delaying the compensation of the damage: Since the compensation of the damage is decisive in terms of postponing the announcement of the verdict, this issue must be resolved during the trial, taking into account the possibility of compensation in installments.
Late collection of evidence: Storage periods of camera images are limited; Delay in crime scene investigation, vehicle examination and witness identification leads to losses that are difficult to compensate for.
Conducting the penalty and compensation processes separately: Since the detection of fault in the criminal file constitutes a strong basis for the compensation case, managing the two processes separately from each other may result in loss of rights.
What determines the outcome in manslaughter cases is often not the event itself, but how the fault is detected and the form of culpability in which the act is placed. Technical auditing of expert reports, meeting the allegation of conscious negligence with concrete facts, establishing the correct distribution of fault, planning the compensation of the damage by considering the possibility of new installments, and carrying out the penalty and compensation processes by looking at each other directly change the course of the file. Küheylan Law Firm provides advocacy and victim representation services in cases of negligence causing death, starting from the investigation stage; It provides legal support in fault assessment, objection to expert reports and compensation processes.
Important Legal Notice: The legal explanations and sample scenarios in this guide have been prepared by Küheylan Law Firm for general information purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Since the unique circumstances of each case may change the outcome, it is recommended to seek legal support from a lawyer from the first stage of the process. © 2026 Küheylan Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Küheylan Law Firm — Burhaniye Mh. Neşetbey Sk. No:12/5 Floor:5 Flat:3 Üsküdar/İstanbul — info@kuheylanhukuk.com — kuheylanhukuk.com
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK