Intentional Injury Resulting in Death under Turkish Criminal Law
Under Turkish criminal law, intentional injury resulting in death constitutes a distinct offense regulated by Article 87/4 of the Turkish Penal Code. This crime occurs when a person deliberately inflicts bodily harm on another individual and that act subsequently leads to the victim’s death, even though the perpetrator did not intend to kill. The offense stands between intentional homicide and negligent homicide and requires careful legal analysis concerning intent, causation, and responsibility.
Unlike intentional homicide, where the perpetrator aims to cause death or consciously accepts that outcome, this offense is characterized by intent limited to bodily harm. The fatal consequence arises due to negligence with respect to the result. For this reason, it is classified as an aggravated result-based crime, in which criminal liability increases because of the seriousness of the consequence rather than a change in the perpetrator’s original purpose.
For criminal responsibility to arise, the act must first qualify as intentional injury within the meaning of Article 86 of the Turkish Penal Code. This includes conduct that causes physical pain, impairs bodily integrity, or negatively affects the victim’s health or perception. The method of injury is not decisive. Striking, pushing, or using an object may all satisfy the legal requirement, provided that the act is intentional and directed at the victim’s body.
The second essential element is the occurrence of death following the injury. Death may occur immediately or after a period of medical treatment or complications. What matters is not the timing but whether a legally relevant causal connection exists between the injury and the fatal outcome. Establishing this connection is primarily based on forensic and medical evidence, often supported by expert reports.
Causation plays a central role in determining liability. It must be shown that the injury inflicted by the perpetrator contributed to or accelerated the victim’s death. The injury does not need to be the sole cause of death. It is sufficient that it constitutes a substantial factor within the chain of events leading to the fatal result. Where death results entirely from an independent and unforeseeable cause, criminal responsibility for the fatal outcome cannot be attributed to the perpetrator.
Modern criminal law also requires an assessment of objective attribution. Physical causation alone is not enough. Courts must evaluate whether the risk created by the perpetrator’s conduct materialized in the specific result that occurred. Liability arises only if the death falls within the scope of danger created by the intentional injury and within the protective purpose of the criminal norm that was violated.
If the fatal outcome is produced by an abnormal or extraordinary sequence of events unrelated to the original risk, objective attribution may be excluded. For example, if a victim suffers a minor injury but later dies due to an entirely unrelated and unforeseeable incident, such as a separate accident, the death may not be legally attributed to the perpetrator.
Practical difficulties often arise when the victim has pre-existing medical conditions, such as heart disease or osteoporosis. In such cases, courts examine whether the injury triggered or significantly accelerated the process leading to death. The mere existence of a chronic illness does not interrupt the causal link. If the injury played a meaningful role in bringing about the fatal outcome, criminal liability may still be established.
Medical intervention following the injury can further complicate the analysis. Errors in treatment do not automatically remove responsibility from the person who caused the injury. Only when medical negligence becomes an independent and dominant cause of death can the original causal chain be considered broken. Otherwise, the initial act of injury remains legally relevant.
The victim’s own conduct is another factor to be assessed. Refusal of treatment or risky behavior after being injured does not necessarily exclude liability, as such reactions are often foreseeable. Responsibility may be removed only when the victim’s conduct is entirely autonomous and unforeseeable, severing the legal connection between the injury and the death.
The distinction between intentional injury resulting in death and intentional homicide depends primarily on the perpetrator’s mental state. If death was intended or consciously accepted as a probable outcome, the offense must be classified as homicide. Courts determine this by examining the nature of the act, the intensity of force used, the number of blows, and the part of the body targeted. Acts directed at vital organs or involving extreme violence may indicate acceptance of the fatal risk.
Article 87/4 prescribes a significantly heavier penalty than ordinary intentional injury or negligent homicide. The justification for this stricter punishment lies in the combination of deliberate violence and the irreversible loss of human life. Sentencing takes into account the degree of negligence regarding the fatal result, the manner in which the act was committed, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Intentional injury resulting in death illustrates the complex interaction between intent and consequence in criminal law. It reflects the principle that a person who deliberately inflicts violence must bear responsibility for the foreseeable and legally attributable outcomes of that violence, even when death was not the intended result. Proper application of this offense requires a careful evaluation of medical evidence, causation, fault, and objective attribution in order to ensure that criminal liability remains consistent with both justice and legal certainty.