TCK 83: Commission of Intentional Homicide by Omission, Guarantorship, and Court of Cassation Precedents

Last updated: September 30, 2026

TCK 83, namely the crime of intentional homicide by omission, is an important offense type regulated in the crimes against life section of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and possessing characteristics distinct from the classic offense of intentional homicide.

In this offense, the perpetrator does not kill a person through a direct positive act such as shooting with a firearm, stabbing, or poisoning. Instead, by intentionally failing to perform an action they are legally obligated to carry out, they cause the occurrence of the result of death.

However, failing to prevent a person's death does not in every case constitute intentional homicide within the scope of TCK Article 83. For the offense to occur, the perpetrator must be under a special legal obligation to protect the victim's life, in other words, guarantor must be fulfilled.

Additionally, a legally sufficient [connection] must exist between the omitted conduct and the death, nexus of causality and the perpetrator's intent regarding the result of death must be established.

Therefore, the fundamental question that must be answered regarding TCK Article 83 is as follows:

When does failing to prevent a person's death count merely as failure to render assistance, when as homicide by negligence, and when as intentional homicide?

The answer to this question can be provided by evaluating together the guarantor status, the opportunity to intervene, the preventability of death, the perpetrator's intent, and all the evidence of the specific case.

For the general structure of the offense of intentional homicide, What is the Crime of Intentional Killing? titled article; whereas regarding qualified circumstances TCK 82 Qualified Intentional Killing our guide can also be reviewed.

Table of Contents

• What is TCK Article 83?
• Statutory Text and Legal Structure of TCK Article 83
• What is Guarantorship?
• Guarantorship Arising from Law
• Guarantorship Arising from Contract
• Previously Performed Dangerous Conduct
• Equivalence of Omission to Commission
• Causation Link in TCK 83
• Intent in TCK 83
• Difference Between TCK 83 and TCK 85
• Difference Between TCK 83 and TCK 98
• Examples of TCK 83 in Practice
• TCK 83 Penalty
• Court of Cassation Precedents on TCK 83
• Competent Court, Detention, and Statute of Limitations
• Key Evidence in TCK 83 Cases
• Frequently Asked Questions

What is TCK Article 83?

Article 83 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the commission of intentional homicide through omission regulates.

In criminal law terminology, this type of offense is often referred to as an "apparent omission offense" or "improper omission offense."

Classic in the offense of intentional homicide the perpetrator causes the result of death through an active movement. In TCK 83, however, the perpetrator causes the result of death by failing to perform an action they are obliged to undertake.

For instance, the legal status of parents who knowingly leave their newborn baby under their care to starve and thirst to death is not the same as that of a third party who fails to help a wounded stranger on the street.

While a special duty of care arising from the law may exist in the first scenario, a specific guarantor status within the meaning of TCK 83 may not exist in the second scenario.

Therefore not every failure to assist or inaction falls within the scope of TCK 83.

Statutory Text and Legal Structure of TCK Article 83

Article 83 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 primarily regulates that in order for a person to be held responsible for a death resulting from the failure to perform a specific required act, the breach of duty must be equivalent to an active act .

For an omission and an active act to be considered equivalent, the person must have:

• an obligation arising from statutory provisions,
• a specific duty to act arising from a contract, or
• created a dangerous situation regarding the life of another through their prior conduct

may be required.

the current text of the TCK from the Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation and Jurisprudence System can be reviewed.

legislative information regarding the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 additionally from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey's Law No. 5237 page accessible.

What is Guarantorship under TCK Article 83?

Guarantorship, is one of the most crucial concepts in the application of TCK 83.

A guarantor is a person upon whom the legal system imposes a specific duty of conduct to protect another person's life or to ensure their protection from a specific danger.

Not every individual is obligated to protect the lives of all other persons in society within the meaning of TCK 83.

Therefore, merely determining that "he could have helped but did not help" is not sufficient under TCK 83.

First and foremost, the following question must be answered:

Did the perpetrator have a specific and legal obligation to protect this person from the danger of death?

If the answer to this question is negative, instead of TCK 83, depending on the circumstances of the case, TCK 98 failure to fulfill the obligation of assistance or reporting other types of offenses may come into question.

Guarantorship Arising from Law

Pursuant to Article 83/2 of the TCK, statute is one of the principal sources of the duty of guarantee.

The law may impose special obligations on certain individuals to protect the life, health, or safety of others.

Guarantorship of Parents Towards Their Child

One of the most prominent examples of statutory guarantorship is the duty of parents to care for and protect their minor children.

Particularly for a newborn child or a child of an age incapable of meeting their own needs;

• ensuring their nutrition,
• protecting them against fatal hazards,
• providing access to healthcare services when necessary,
• meeting basic care needs

may be evaluated among the legal obligations of the parents.

However, every failure in care by the parents does not constitute an offense under Article 83 of the TCK.

For an omission to be evaluated within the scope of Article 83 of the TCK, the causal link with the result of death and the intent of the perpetrator must additionally be proven.

Guarantee Status of Public Officials

Certain public officials may be subject to special protection obligations due to their duties and jurisdictions.

For instance, the obligations of officials who are legally responsible for protecting the life of a person in custody can be examined under Article 83 of the TCK with respect to the specific incident.

However, holding the status of a public official is not sufficient on its own, and it must also be determined which specific conduct the relevant official was obliged to perform in the given case.

Guarantorship Arising from Contract

Guarantee status does not derive solely from the law. A person may also undertake the duty to protect another person's life or safety by contract.

Examples of guarantee status arising from a contract include:

• a duty lifeguard,
• healthcare personnel who actually undertake the treatment,
• a caregiver who undertakes the care of a person in need of care,
• individuals who assume safety responsibility in hazardous activities,
• professional guides depending on the specific circumstances

may be demonstrated.

Guarantee Obligation of the Lifeguard

A lifeguard on duty in a swimming area may be under a contractual obligation to protect the lives of individuals in that area under certain conditions.

If the lifeguard fails to intervene—despite seeing the danger of drowning and being in a position to intervene—either by desiring or accepting the outcome of death, Article 83 of the TCK may apply.

However, it must also be examined whether the person was truly in a rescuable condition and whether the lifeguard had the opportunity to intervene.

Failure of a Physician to Intervene

Regarding the physician-patient relationship, an obligation to protect and intervene may also arise depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

However, not every medical error constitutes an offense under Article 83 of the TCK.

If death occurs as a result of the physician;

• making a misdiagnosis,
• showing negligence,
• violating the obligation of professional diligence, or
• making an error in medical evaluation,

provided that the legal conditions are met, TCK 85 causing death by negligence may come up.

Under TCK 83, however, the physician must intentionally perform the medical intervention—despite knowing the risk of death—and either desire or accept the resulting death.

Prior Dangerous Conduct and TCK Article 83(2)(b)

The third important source of guarantor status in TCK 83 is that the perpetrator has previously created a dangerous situation for another person's life through their own conduct.

In criminal law doctrine, this situation is sometimes referred to as ingérence or the principle of prior dangerous conduct.

For example, if a person puts someone else's life in danger through their own conduct, a special obligation may arise for them to prevent the resulting danger from culminating in death.

TCK 83 in the Context of a Driver Involved in a Traffic Accident

In certain cases, the subsequent actions of a driver who causes a traffic accident may be significant under TCK 83.

However, TCK 83 does not apply to every fatal traffic accident.

For instance, if the driver;

• creates a life-threatening danger for the victim through their own conduct,
• knowing that the injured party is under the risk of death,
• being in a position to call for help or intervene,
• foreseeing and accepting the consequence of death,
• the possibility of preventing death if timely assistance is provided

such matters must be evaluated together.

If intent is absent, the incident the crime of manslaughter by negligence may fall within the scope of.

What Does It Mean for an Omission to Be Equivalent to a Commission?

For TCK Article 83 to be applied, it is not sufficient merely for the perpetrator to have a legal obligation.

The law also requires that the neglect of this obligation, with respect to the specific case, be equivalent to a commission by act .

In other words, the perpetrator's omission must be legally equivalent in weight to an active killing conduct regarding the resulting death.

This characteristic distinguishes TCK 83 from ordinary cases of failure to render assistance.

A similar system regarding the commission of intentional injury through omission is also set forth in TCK 88. In connection with this subject, TCK 88 Commission of Intentional Injury Through Omission our article titled can be reviewed.

Must the Perpetrator Have the Opportunity to Intervene?

Yes. The mere theoretical existence of an obligation on the part of the perpetrator is not sufficient by itself.

The person must be in a position to perform the conduct expected of them in the specific incident.

For instance, even if a lifeguard has a duty to rescue a person in the sea, it must be additionally evaluated whether there was a physical or technical possibility of rescue in the specific incident.

Similarly, it must be investigated which intervention the physician could perform, whether the intervention was medically feasible, and the probability of the intervention changing the outcome.

How is the Causation Link Established in TCK 83?

One of the most crucial and difficult issues in TCK 83 cases is the causal link between the omission and the death.

In commission crimes, the material cause-and-effect relationship between the act performed by the perpetrator and the result is investigated.

In crimes of omission, on the other hand, there is an action that was not performed.

For this reason, the examination is mostly conducted through the following question:

Would the resulting death have been prevented if the perpetrator had performed the required positive act in a timely manner?

This assessment is often referred to in legal doctrine as hypothetical or virtual causality .

Particularly in cases where medical causes of death are debated;

• autopsy reports,
• Council of Forensic Medicine evaluations,
• hospital records,
• expert witness reports,
• crime scene conditions

may be decisive.

Even if the perpetrator had intervened, if death would have been inevitable, it becomes debatable whether the necessary legal connection between negligence and the result of death can be established under Article 83 of the TCK.

Failure to Determine the Exact Cause of Death

Of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation E. 2022/6865, K. 2024/1908, D. 21.03.2024 numbered decision is important in this regard.

In the case subject to the decision, the care conditions of the prematurely born baby and whether the mother fulfilled her obligations were discussed.

However, the failure to establish the cause of death with sufficient certainty directly affected the causality assessment under Article 83 of the TCK.

It was evaluated that it must be investigated whether the baby died due to natural complications arising from prematurity or due to deficiencies in care and environmental conditions.

The Court of Cassation considered incomplete investigation as grounds for reversal.

The important principle established by this decision in terms of Article 83 of the TCK is as follows:

The breach of the guarantor obligation alone is not sufficient for a conviction of murder by omission; the connection between death and negligence must also be demonstrated with sufficient evidence.

Current texts and citations of Court of Cassation decisions From the Court of Cassation Presidency Decision Search System can be reviewed.

How is Intent Determined under TCK Article 83?

TCK Article 83 is a intentional homicide crime.

Therefore, mere negligence, carelessness, or lack of care is not sufficient for TCK Article 83.

The perpetrator must have the intent regarding the result of death.

Direct Intent

If the perpetrator knows and desires the result of death, direct intent exists.

For example, direct intent may be debated in the case of a person who consciously fails to provide food or vital medication to someone under their care with the intention to kill.

Eventual Intent

If the perpetrator foresees that the result of death may occur and yet remains inactive by accepting the result, eventual intent may come into question.

In judicial practice, in determining intent;

• the obviousness of the danger,
• the profession and experience of the perpetrator,
• the condition of the victim,
• conduct prior to the incident,
• conduct subsequent to the incident,
• whether assistance was called,
• the opportunity for intervention and
• the extent to which the risk was known by the perpetrator

such externally manifested facts are important.

Difference Between TCK 83 and Manslaughter by Negligence under TCK 85

Between TCK Article 83 and TCK 85 causing death by negligence the most significant distinction in practice is the mental element, namely the distinction between intent and negligence.

The distinction between conscious negligence and eventual intent can be particularly difficult.

In general, if the perpetrator foresees the result but trusts that it will not occur, conscious negligence is at issue; if they foresee the result and accept its occurrence, eventual intent is discussed.

However, in a real criminal case, the legal qualification of the offense is not determined according to a single formula, but by evaluating all evidence together.

Difference Between TCK 83 and TCK 81 and TCK 82

TCK 81 intentional homicide the basic form of the crime, TCK 82 on the other hand, governs aggravated circumstances of intentional homicide.

The distinguishing feature of TCK 83 is that the result of death occurs through the failure to perform a legally mandated act instead of an active conduct.

How to Distinguish Between Active Conduct and Conduct by Omission?

The fact that an incident outwardly appears to be an "abandonment" does not mean that the act is always one of omission.

If the perpetrator directly places the victim in mortal danger through active movements, the act may be evaluated within the scope of intentional homicide by commission instead of TCK Article 83.

The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation's E. 2020/265, K. 2022/503, T. 29.06.2022 dated precedent is important in terms of this distinction.

In the case subject to the ruling, the abandonment of an elderly mother in need of care by driving her to a desolate quarry area at night was debated.

The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers did not evaluate the victim being personally taken and left in a life-threatening area merely as a passive omission; it emphasized the creation of mortal danger through active conduct.

This approach reveals the following distinction regarding TCK Article 83:

The perpetrator actively placing the victim in danger is not the same thing as failing to take the legally required intervention against a pre-existing mortal danger.

What is the Difference Between TCK 83 and TCK 98?

Between TCK Article 83 and TCK 98 failure to fulfill the obligation of assistance or reporting must be distinguished from one another.

The fundamental difference once again suretyship arises in the concept of.

In terms of TCK Article 98, it concerns a person who, having no special guarantee relationship, fails to assist an individual incapable of managing themselves to the extent permitted by circumstances, or fails to report the situation to the competent authorities.

Under the scope of TCK Article 98/1, the sanction is imprisonment for up to one year or a judicial fine.

However, in the event of the person's death due to the failure to fulfill the duty of assistance or reporting, pursuant to TCK Article 98/2 imprisonment from one to three years it is envisaged.

Is Failing to Help an Injured Person Seen on the Road Considered TCK Article 83?

As a rule, no.

An ordinary third party who did not cause the accident and has no special statutory or contractual duty of protection over the injured person is not a guarantor within the meaning of TCK Article 83.

However, if the conditions are met, a breach of the duty to assist or report under TCK Article 98 may arise.

Therefore “every failure to assist is TCK Article 83” the expression ... is not legally correct.

Examples Regarding the Application of TCK 83

Parental Neglect of an Infant

The statutory duty of care and protection of parents over their minor children is one of the most typical examples of guarantor status under Article 83 of the TCK.

However, a lack of care alone is insufficient for the application of Article 83 of the TCK.

Causation between the result of death and the omission, as well as intent regarding the resulting death, must also be proven.

Failure of a Lifeguard to Intervene

The intentional failure of a lifeguard, who is obligated to ensure the safety of individuals within their jurisdiction, to intervene despite an obvious risk of death may be evaluated under Article 83 of the TCK, provided that other conditions are met.

Intentional Failure of a Physician to Intervene

In the event that a physician who has undertaken treatment fails to intervene—despite knowing the risk of death—by desiring or accepting the resulting death, Article 83 of the TCK may be a subject of discussion.

Conversely, professional negligence and medical malpractice more frequently constitute TCK 85 shall be evaluated within the scope of.

Abandonment of an Elderly and Dependent Person

Failing to care for an elderly mother or father does not directly constitute a violation of Article 83 of the TCK in every specific case.

First, the perpetrator's specific duty of care, whether the victim was capable of managing themselves, whether the perpetrator assumed the responsibility of care, whether they knew the risk of death, and their intent must be examined.

Failure to Intervene in a Suicide Attempt

The failure of an ordinary third party to intervene in a suicide attempt does not constitute Article 83 of the TCK on its own.

If there is no special guarantor relationship, Article 98 of the TCK may be evaluated if the conditions are met.

However, Article 83 of the TCK may apply to individuals who have a special legal duty of protection and supervision regarding the prevention of suicide.

Encouraging suicide, reinforcing the decision to commit suicide, or assisting in suicide must be evaluated separately within the scope of Article 84 of the TCK.

What is the Penalty under TCK 83?

Article 83/3 of the TCK provides for a special sentencing regime for the crime of intentional killing by omission.

However, there is a crucially important provision in the law:

The court is not obligated to apply a discretionary reduction in the sentence.

TCK Article 83/3 explicitly regulates that a sentence reduction may not be made.

Therefore, the statement that 'if the offense under TCK Article 83 is committed, a sentence of 10-15 years will definitely be given' is incorrect.

In the specific case whether the qualified circumstances of homicide under TCK Article 82 exist and the court's discretionary power within the scope of TCK Article 83/3 are important.

Court of Cassation Precedents on TCK 83

In the application of TCK Article 83, Court of Cassation precedents are particularly significant regarding four issues:

• whether a guarantee status exists,
• the causal link between negligence and death,
• the distinction between intent and negligence,
• whether the conduct was truly omission-based or commission-based.

Searches can be conducted on the official jurisprudence database of the Court of Cassation by chamber, merits number, decision number, and date. For current case-law review Supreme Court Decision Search system can be utilized.

The UYAP Legislation system provided by the Ministry of Justice also provides access to legislation and high court jurisprudence. Information regarding the UYAP Legislation and Jurisprudence system can be obtained.

Yargıtay 1st Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2022/6865, Decision No. 2024/1908

The core issue in this decision is that the cause of death of the premature infant, whose mother is alleged to have breached her duty of care, could not be determined with sufficient certainty.

Entering a conviction under Article 83 of the TCK without thoroughly investigating whether the death resulted from natural complications associated with prematurity or from care conditions was deemed problematic.

The decision demonstrates, in particular, that the nexus of causality must not be established on the basis of assumptions.

Yargıtay 1st Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2022/680, Decision No. 2023/4813

In the fatal incident occurring at the pond, it was debated whether the defendant created a danger regarding the victim and whether there was an opportunity for rescue.

Given that it could not be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the result of death intentionally or through negligence, the evaluation for acquittal was upheld.

This decision in dubio pro reo demonstrates the importance of the principle in TCK 83 cases.

Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, E. 2023/2442, K. 2023/2428

The guarantee obligation of the parents was evaluated regarding the death resulting from the failure to properly tie the umbilical cord of a newborn baby and depriving them of a suitable environment and medical intervention.

The decision is particularly important in terms of determining the boundary between TCK 83 and TCK 85 causing death by negligence ,

General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation E. 2020/265, K. 2022/503

In the incident where a person in need of care was personally taken and left in a dangerous and desolate area, emphasis was placed on the active (commission) rather than omission nature of the conduct.

Thus, an important boundary emerges regarding TCK 83:

Creating a risk of death through an active movement and failing to perform the legal conduct necessary to prevent an existing danger do not constitute the same criminal structure.

How Should the Examination of TCK 83 Be Conducted According to Court of Cassation Precedents?

When the Court of Cassation decisions are evaluated together, the court fundamentally needs to separately answer the following questions regarding TCK 83:

1. Was the perpetrator a guarantor regarding the victim?
2. What action was the perpetrator obligated to perform?
3. Did the perpetrator have the opportunity to perform this action?
4. Could death have been prevented if an intervention had been made?
5. Did the perpetrator foresee the consequence of death?
6. Did they desire or accept the result of death?
7. Was the perpetrator's conduct truly by omission, or did they create the danger through an active act?

The answers to these questions may alter which of the provisions of TCK 81, TCK 82, TCK 83, TCK 85, or TCK 98 shall apply.

Which Court Has Jurisdiction Over TCK 83 Cases?

The court with jurisdiction in criminal cases brought within the scope of TCK Article 83 is the High Criminal Court.

Article 12 of Law No. 5235 stipulates that cases and proceedings concerning offenses requiring aggravated life imprisonment, life imprisonment, and imprisonment exceeding ten years fall within the jurisdiction of high criminal courts.

For information regarding the general structure of criminal investigation and high criminal adjudication Criminal Law and High Criminal Cases our page can be reviewed.

Is Detention Possible under TCK 83’te?

Yes.

Intentional homicide offenses are regulated among catalog crimes within the scope of CMK Article 100/3.

However, falling within the scope of catalog crimes does not mean that a detention order will be issued automatically in every case involving an accusation under TCK 83.

Pretrial detention is not a punishment, but a provisional protective measure.

Concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of a crime, the grounds for detention, proportionality, and other statutory conditions must be evaluated separately.

The current text of the Code of Criminal Procedure From the UYAP Legislation Information System can be reviewed.

Is the Offense under TCK 83 Subject to a Complaint?

No.

The crime of murder committed by omission is not subject to a complaint.

When the public prosecutor's office learns of a suspicion of a crime, the investigation is conducted ex officio.

The withdrawal of complaints by the victim's relatives does not automatically terminate the investigation or public prosecution.

Is TCK 83 Subject to Mediation/Conciliation?

No.

The crime of intentional homicide within the scope of TCK 83 is not subject to the settlement procedure.

What is the Statute of Limitations for TCK 83?

The statute of limitations calculation regarding TCK 83 must be made according to the nature of the specific allegation.

Especially with basic intentional homicide qualified intentional homicide whether its provisions apply and the special sentencing system under Article 83/3 of the TCK must be taken into consideration.

Depending on the nature of the allegation, extended statute of limitations periods come into play within the scope of Article 66 of the TCK. Qualified homicide and situations requiring aggravated life imprisonment are not subject to the same statute of limitations assessment as other forms of homicide.

Furthermore, since there may be grounds that interrupt or suspend the statute of limitations, the calculation of time in the specific criminal case file must be made based on the file itself.

Can HAGB Be Applied Under Article 83 of the TCK?

Due to the length of the prison sentences that may be imposed under Article 83 of the TCK, in the event of a conviction, suspension of the pronouncement of the verdict (HAGB) is not possible.

Regarding the current conditions of the HAGB institution and the 2026 amendments, HAGB Regulation 2026 our article titled can be reviewed.

Can the Sentence Under TCK 83 Be Suspended?

The prison sentences stipulated under Article 83 of the TCK exceed the time limits regarding the suspension of imprisonment set forth in Article 51 of the TCK.

Therefore, in the event of a conviction under Article 83 of the TCK, the suspension of the prison sentence is not possible.

Is There Effective Remorse (Active Repentance) in TCK Article 83?

There is no specific provision for effective remorse under TCK Article 83.

However, if the perpetrator changes their behavior before the fatal outcome occurs and ensures the rescue of the victim, general provisions regarding voluntary withdrawal may also be discussed depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

What Evidence Is Crucial in TCK 83 Cases?

Evidentiary assessment in TCK 83 trials is of central importance in determining the legal nature of the crime.

In particular, the following evidence may be significant:

• autopsy reports,
• Council of Forensic Medicine reports,
• hospital and medical records,
• camera footage,
• crime scene investigation reports,
• telephone records,
• text messages,
• witness statements,
• documents demonstrating the care and supervision relationship,
• contracts,
• job descriptions,
• expert witness reports,
• the defendant's behavior before and after the incident.

Particularly, medical evidence regarding the certainty of the cause of death and whether death could have been prevented had the perpetrator intervened can be decisive.

What Questions Are Critical in TCK 83 Defense Strategies?

In an accusation under TCK Article 83, the following matters in particular must be examined:

• Did the accused truly have a legal duty of guarantee?
• What law, contract, or prior conduct did the guarantor status arise from?
• Did the accused have the opportunity to intervene?
• Has the cause of death been definitively determined?
• Would death have been prevented if an intervention had been made?
• Was the accused aware of the risk of death?
• Did they desire or accept the consequence?
• Could conscious negligence be at issue instead of eventual intent (dolus eventualis)?
• Is the perpetrator's conduct by omission or by commission?
• Is a conviction being attempted based on a mere assumption?

This analysis is particularly important in terms of the distinction between TCK 83 and TCK 85 .

You can access our other current content regarding criminal law via the Criminal Law Articles section.

Frequently Asked Questions About TCK 83

What is TCK 83?

TCK 83 regulates that a person who is legally obligated to perform a specific act, but intentionally fails to perform this act, shall be held liable for the resulting death under the provisions of intentional homicide, provided that the conditions are met. Guarantorship, omission equivalent to commission, the causal link, and intent are the fundamental evaluation points of the offense.

Does every failure to render assistance constitute TCK 83?

No. For TCK 83, the perpetrator must have a special legal obligation to protect the victim's life. The conduct of a person who lacks a special guarantorship relationship may, if the conditions are met, TCK 98 may be evaluated within the scope of.

What is the difference between TCK 83 and TCK 85?

The fundamental difference is the distinction between intent and negligence. While TCK 83 involves intent regarding the consequence of death, under TCK 85 the perpetrator does not desire the consequence of death, and death occurs as a result of a breach of the duty of care and diligence.

What is the prison sentence term under TCK 83?

Pursuant to TCK 83/3, if the basic offense requires aggravated life imprisonment, a prison sentence of 20 to 25 years may be imposed; if it requires life imprisonment, 15 to 20 years; and in other cases, 10 to 15 years. However, the court also has the discretion not to apply discretionary mitigation to the sentence.

Is a sentence reduction mandatory for the offense under TCK 83?

No. TCK 83/3 explicitly grants the court the discretion not to apply sentence reductions.

Would a person who fails to help an injured individual seen on the road be punished under TCK 83?

As a rule, TCK 83 does not apply because an ordinary third party does not have a special guarantor obligation over the victim. However, if the conditions are met, the violation of the obligation to assist or report under TCK 98 may arise.

Does TCK 83 apply if a driver involved in a traffic accident does not help the injured person?

It may apply depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The driver creating the danger through their own conduct, knowing the risk of death, having the opportunity to intervene, accepting the result, and the fact that death could have been prevented with timely assistance must be evaluated together. TCK 83 does not apply automatically in every traffic accident.

Does a physician's failure to intervene constitute TCK 83?

Not every medical negligence constitutes TCK 83. If the physician intentionally refrains from intervening despite knowing the risk of death and desires or accepts the result, TCK 83 may be debated. In cases of professional error or negligence, reckless homicide under TCK 85 arises if the conditions are met.

Could a lifeguard's failure to intervene in a drowning constitute TCK 83?

Yes, it can, if the conditions are met. A lifeguard may be a guarantor due to their employment relationship. However, the opportunity to intervene, the preventability of death, and intent must also be proven.

Does a parent's neglect of their child constitute TCK 83?

Parents have a legal duty of care and protection toward their child. However, for TCK 83, in addition to the lack of care, the causal link between the omission and the result of death, as well as intent regarding the result of death, must be established.

Is failing to care for an elderly mother or father considered TCK 83?

Not in every case. The specific duty of care, the victim's ability to take care of themselves, the care relationship between the parties, the risk of death, the opportunity to intervene, and the intent of the perpetrator must be evaluated together.

Is failing to intervene to help a person who is about to commit suicide considered TCK 83?

As a rule, TCK 83 does not apply to an ordinary third party who does not have a special guarantor relationship. However, TCK 83 may be discussed regarding individuals who have a special legal obligation to protect the person. Incitement to and assistance in suicide, on the other hand, are evaluated separately under TCK 84.

Is TCK 83 subject to a complaint?

No. The crime is investigated and prosecuted ex officio. Withdrawal of a complaint does not automatically terminate the public prosecution.

Is TCK 83 subject to settlement (conciliation)?

No. The commission of intentional homicide by omission is not within the scope of conciliation.

Which court has jurisdiction over TCK 83 cases?

The competent court under TCK 83 is the assize court. Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the jurisdictional rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the specific circumstances of the case.

Is detention pending trial possible under TCK 83?

Yes. Intentional homicide offenses are among the catalog crimes within the scope of CMK Art. 100/3. However, detention is not automatic; strong suspicion of guilt based on concrete evidence, grounds for detention, and proportionality must also be evaluated.

Can the pronouncement of the judgment be deferred (HAGB) under TCK 83?

Due to the amount of penalties that can be imposed under TCK 83, the application of HAGB is not possible in the event of a conviction.

Can the sentence under TCK 83 be deferred?

No. The prison sentences prescribed under TCK 83 exceed the statutory periods stipulated in the law for the suspension of imprisonment.

Conclusion: Not Every Omission Constitutes Intentional Homicide under TCK 83

The commission of intentional homicide by omission within the scope of TCK 83 it is not sufficient merely for the perpetrator to have failed to perform an act to establish the offense.

First, the perpetrator must have a legal duty of guarantee it must be determined whether it exists.

Subsequently;

• which conduct the perpetrator is obliged to perform,
• whether there is the opportunity to perform this conduct,
• whether the omission is equivalent to a commission through action,
• whether death could have been prevented in the event of an intervention,
• whether there is intent regarding the consequence of death,

must be examined separately.

Yargıtay precedent, particularly guarantorship, causal link, intent, legal qualification of the offense, and the principle of in dubio pro reo focuses on.

Therefore, the same death incident, based on concrete evidence, Article 81 of the TCK, TCK 82, TCK 83, TCK 85 or TCK 98 may lead to different legal consequences within the scope of.

When evaluating an investigation or heavy penal court file under TCK 83, the medical and physical evidence of the incident, Forensic Medicine reports, and the source of the perpetrator's legal obligation over the victim must be examined together.

Official and Related Resources

• Ministry of Justice – UYAP Legislation and Jurisprudence Information System
• Court of Cassation Presidency – Precedent Search System
• Court of Cassation Presidency
• Ministry of Justice – UYAP Information System
• UYAP Legislation and Jurisprudence Program
• Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) – Information on Turkish Penal Code No. 5237
• Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) – Turkish Penal Code Legislative Information
• Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of Justice

Related Criminal Law Articles:

• Crime of Intentional Homicide – TCK Article 81
• Qualified Intentional Homicide – TCK Article 82
• Manslaughter by Negligence – TCK Article 85
• Crime of Intentional Injury – TCK Article 86
• Commission of Intentional Injury by Omission – TCK Article 88
• Failure to Perform the Duty to Assist or Report – TCK Article 98
• HAGB Conditions and the 2026 Regulation
• Criminal Law and High Criminal Cases
• Criminal Law Articles
• Contact

Atty. Batın YILMAZ – Istanbul Bar Association Registration No: 77008

This content has been prepared for general legal informational purposes. In a specific criminal case, the legal classification of the offense, guarantee status, intent, causal nexus, applicable penalties, and procedural provisions may vary depending on the evidence in the case file and judicial evaluation.