Acquittal Judgment in Drug Trafficking | Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court

acquittal in a drug trafficking case the Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court rendered an acquittal verdict pursuant to Article 223/2-e of CMK, on the grounds that there was no conclusive and convincing evidence to support the allegation that the accused sold narcotics. The court evaluated the incriminating statement made against the accused by an individual who was subjected to legal proceedings for the offense of drug use, and specifically emphasized in the reasoning of its decision the absence of any other concrete evidence corroborating this statement.

In which Atty. Batın YILMAZ acted as defense counsel for the accused, in the case of the Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court dated 02.03.2023, with Case Number 2022/91 and Decision Number 2023/85, an acquittal was rendered regarding the charge of drug or stimulant trafficking.

The most significant aspect of the decision is that in charges of drug trafficking, another person's incriminating statement against the accused is not considered sufficient for a conviction in the absence of independent corroborating evidence. The court reached the verdict of acquittal by jointly evaluating the lack of physical surveillance, the absence of eyewitness testimony regarding drug sales, and the fact that no drugs were seized from the accused.

This case review anonymizes personal information while discussing the court's evidentiary assessment, the standard of proof in the crime of drug trafficking, the legal value of statements constituting mutual accusations (atfı cürüm), and the principle of in dubio pro reo (the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant).

Acquittal Decision of the Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court on Drug Trafficking

At the conclusion of the trial, the court ruled that it was not established that the accused committed the offense charged. The basis of the decision is the failure to set forth sufficient evidence demonstrating that the act of drug trafficking was committed by the accused.

The Case at Hand: Seizure of Narcotics and Accusation of the Defendant by Another Person

The incident underlying the case began with a law enforcement stop conducted on January 1, 2021, in the Şişli district of İstanbul.

Narcotics and paraphernalia associated with drug use were seized in the possession of an individual inside a vehicle stopped by law enforcement officers.

Following the incident, the individual, against whom proceedings were initiated for possession of narcotics for personal use, claimed in their police statement that they had purchased the seized narcotics from another person for a fee.

The investigation was directed toward the accused after it was subsequently determined that the telephone number provided in this individual's statement belonged to the accused, who was being prosecuted for drug trafficking.

As a result of the investigation conducted by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor, a public lawsuit was filed against the accused in the Assize Court on the allegation of drug trafficking.

However, the fundamental issue that arose during the trial is that the evidentiary link required to be established between the seizure of the narcotics in another person's vehicle and the proof that the accused sold this substance has not been sufficiently established.

Seizure of Narcotics in the Possession of Another Person

While it is undisputed that narcotics were seized in the case file, the mere seizure of narcotics does not, by itself, prove that the accused engaged in drug sales.

In criminal proceedings, in order to render a conviction for the offense of drug trafficking, it must also be proven that the trafficking act subject to the charge was carried out by the accused.

In the examined file, the narcotic substance was not seized directly on the defendant or in a place belonging to him.

Therefore, the court separately evaluated the evidence establishing the connection between the narcotic substance and the defendant.

Defendant's Defense: Denial of the Drug Trafficking Charges

Throughout the proceedings, the defendant has denied the accusations of drug trafficking.

In his defense statement given at the hearing dated 14.11.2022, he asserted that the statements of the person accusing him were untrue.

While the defendant acknowledged that the telephone number specified within the scope of the investigation belongs to him, he defended that he did not conduct any conversation connected to drug sales and that there was no relationship whatsoever regarding drug trafficking between him and the person accusing him.

Upon the defendant's rejection of the account claiming that the narcotic substances were purchased from him, the court evaluated whether the incriminating statement of the witness was supported by other evidence in the case file.

Key legal distinction: The fact that the defendant's telephone number is known by another person or that this number is determined to belong to him does not, in and of itself, mean that drug trafficking has been proven.

Whom the telephone number belongs to and whether the drug sale subject to the accusation actually took place through that number are separate evidentiary issues.

The Public Prosecutor Also Demanded an Acquittal

One of the notable features of the case file is not only the defense for acquittal put forward by the defense counsel, but also that the public prosecutor's final opinion on the merits was likewise in favor of acquittal.

After evaluating the evidence supporting the charge of drug trafficking in the file, the public prosecutor stated that definitive and convincing evidence requiring the conviction of the defendant could not be reached.

The prosecutor's opinion on the merits stated that, apart from the incriminating statement of the individual investigated for possession of narcotics for personal use, there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction regarding the commission of the alleged offense.

Therefore, the public prosecutor requested the acquittal of the defendant of the charge of drug trafficking brought against him.

Following its independent evaluation of the evidence, the court ruled for the defendant's acquittal.

Is the Testimony of a Single Witness Sufficient for Conviction in Drug Trafficking Cases?

In criminal proceedings, witness testimonies legally constitute evidence. However, the mere existence of a witness statement does not mean that this statement is sufficient for a conviction in every case.

The reliability of witness testimonies, their relevance to the incident, the consistency of the narrative, the source of the witness's knowledge, and whether they are supported by other evidence must be evaluated.

Particularly in cases where one person accuses another while also undergoing an investigation for an offense-related incident, it is crucial that the statement be considered in conjunction with the entire case file.

This issue also arose in the case file examined by the Istanbul 16th Assize Court.

The court evaluated the statement of the individual claiming to have purchased the narcotics from the defendant alongside other evidence presented against the defendant.

Consequently, it was ruled that there was insufficient and unconvincing independent evidence to support the incriminating statement.

This decision does not imply that a single witness statement can under no circumstances be used as the basis for a conviction. The conclusion reached by the court pertains to the content of the incriminating statement in the specific case file, the existing evidence, and their probative force.

What is a Statement in the Nature of Implicating Another (Atfı Cürüm)?

Atfı cürüm is a legal expression used to mean a person attributing a criminal act to another person or accusing someone else by claiming that a crime has been committed.

Such statements can gain significance particularly in cases where a person against whom proceedings are initiated for an offense states that they obtained the narcotic substance from someone else.

However, the veracity of the statement is determined by evaluating whether the accusation against the defendant is proven together with other evidence.

In the reviewed court decision as well, the statement accusing the defendant made by a person against whom proceedings were conducted for the offense of use of narcotics in another file, as a statement in the nature of implicating another has been evaluated.

Which Missing Evidence Did the Court Specifically Emphasize?

Istanbul 16th Assize Court, in the evaluation of evidence and reasoning section of its decision dated 02.03.2023, specifically noted certain evidentiary deficiencies while explaining that the accusation could not be proven sufficiently.

1. Absence of Physical Surveillance Regarding the Sale of Narcotics

The court determined that there was no physical surveillance supporting the allegation that the defendant sold narcotic substances.

In narcotics trafficking investigations, physical surveillance can be one of the pieces of evidence that may reveal the alleged sale or delivery relationship. However, the absence of this evidence does not automatically result in an acquittal in every case file.

The absence of physical surveillance in this case has been evaluated together with the lack of other evidence supporting the inculpatory witness statement.

2. Absence of Direct Eyewitness Testimony Regarding Drug Sales

The Court pointed out that the officers who drafted the report regarding the drug sale lacked any direct, firsthand observation.

In other words, no testimony by a law enforcement officer stating that they directly observed the drug transaction being carried out by the defendant could be presented in the file.

This situation has made the question of upon which specific incident and observation the accusation is substantiated significant.

3. Absence of Seizure of Narcotics from the Defendant

Another point emphasized in the reasoned decision is that no narcotic substance was seized from the defendant.

The failure to seize narcotics from the defendant does not, by itself, prove that the crime of drug trafficking was not committed. Indeed, drug sales can also be proven by other lawful evidence.

However, upon examination of the case file, no narcotic substance was seized from the defendant, nor was there sufficient corroborating evidence to support the statement of the accuser.

4. Absence of Concrete Independent Evidence Regarding Drug Trafficking

The court's assessment is based not merely on the individual deficiencies of the evidence, but on the failure to reach a standard of proof sufficient for conviction within the scope of the entire case file.

Since there is no concrete evidence to substantiate the allegation that the defendant engaged in drug trafficking, the doubt as to whether the offense was committed by the defendant could not be eliminated.

Reasoning of the Court: The Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo (Benefit of the Doubt)

Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court, in the reasoning of the acquittal judgment, in dubio pro reo has addressed the principle in detail.

According to the court, a judgment of conviction cannot be rendered when there is no conclusive and convincing evidence beyond any doubt showing that the defendant committed the crime of drug trafficking.

The court included the following statement in its reasoning:

“If the doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime cannot be eliminated, the defendant must be acquitted.”

This principle is one of the fundamental guarantees of criminal procedure.

The existence of a suspicion of a crime against a person and the proof of the commission of the crime with certainty sufficient to render a judgment are different from each other.

In criminal proceedings, the defendant is not obligated to prove their innocence. The burden of proving the accusation rests upon the prosecution.

In the Constitutional Court's evaluations regarding the presumption of innocence, it is explained that a person under a criminal charge cannot be required to prove their innocence, and the presumption of innocence must be protected in the proof of the accusation.

Article 223/2-e of CMK: Lack of Proof That the Offense Was Committed by the Accused

The legal basis for the acquittal ruling in the examined decision is subparagraph (e) of the second paragraph of Article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK).

This provision stipulates that an acquittal ruling shall be rendered if it is not established that the imputed crime was committed by the accused.

The grounds for an acquittal ruling rendered within the scope of CMK Article 223/2-e and an acquittal ruling rendered within the scope of CMK Article 223/2-b differ from each other.

Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court in this case file CMK 223/2-e applied the provision.

Therefore, the reasoning of the court is that it could not be proven with sufficient evidence that the incident subject to the charge was carried out by the defendant.

It would not be correct to interpret this decision as \"the court determined that the incident never took place\". Narcotics were seized in the case file; however, it was not established that the act of drug trafficking was committed by this defendant.

Legal Framework of the Offense of Drug Trafficking: TCK Article 188

The crime of manufacturing and trafficking of drugs or stimulant substances, under Article 188 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 is governed by.

TCK 188 contains provisions regulating various acts of drug or stimulant substance trafficking.

The sale, offering for sale, transfer, dispatch of drugs, or the execution of other alternative acts of the crime may give rise to criminal liability depending on the specifics of the case.

However, the fact that a crime is regulated by law does not mean that a person prosecuted for this crime will necessarily be convicted.

It must be demonstrated with concrete evidence that the alleged act was committed by the defendant.

In the reviewed decision of the Istanbul 16th Assize Court, the core issue is not the existence of the narcotic substance, but rather the failure to prove that the defendant sold these substances.

The Difference Between Drug Trafficking and the Offense of Possession of Narcotics for Personal Use

The Turkish Penal Code regulates drug trafficking and the acts of purchasing, accepting, or possessing drugs for personal use under different provisions.

TCK 188 to the manufacturing and trafficking of drugs or stimulant substances, TCK 191 pertains to the acts of purchasing, accepting, possessing, or using narcotic or psychotropic drugs for personal use.

In the jurisprudence of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) concerning drug offenses, it is stated that the circumstances of the specific case and the evidence are crucial in determining the purpose for which the act of drug possession was carried out.

In the reviewed case file, the narcotics were seized in another person's vehicle, and separate proceedings were initiated against this individual for possession of narcotics for personal use.

Meanwhile, a separate trial was conducted regarding the defendant who was alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking.

It is important that the legal positions of these two individuals are not conflated.

The court rendered an acquittal, evaluating that it could not be proven that the defendant committed the crime of drug trafficking.

Evaluation of Evidence in Drug Offenses in the Case Law of the Court of Cassation

In Court of Cassation precedents concerning drug offenses, the importance of concrete evidence is emphasized for determining the legal nature of the offense and proving the imputed act.

In a decision of the Court of Cassation regarding drug trafficking, witness testimonies and the manner in which the incident occurred were addressed within the scope of the evaluation of evidence.

However, it cannot be said that all drug trafficking cases share the same evidentiary structure.

In some case files, communication records and physical surveillance results may come to the fore, in others, images regarding the delivery of narcotics or other concrete information, and in yet others, witness statements.

The primary evaluation is whether the existing evidence eliminates the doubt as to whether the crime was committed by the accused.

In the decision of the Istanbul 16th Assize Court, the lack of other evidence adequately supporting the accusatory statement that the defendant engaged in drug trafficking formed the basis of the acquittal decision.

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof in Criminal Procedure

Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey stipulates that no one shall be considered guilty until their guilt is proven by a final judgment.

A similar guarantee is also enshrined in Article 6, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

One of the important implications of the presumption of innocence is that the accused is not under the burden of proving their innocence in criminal proceedings.

In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court regarding the presumption of innocence, it is explained that the burden of proving guilt lies with the prosecution and that there must be a sufficient legal basis to accept that a person is guilty.

In the case under review, the court evaluated the defendant's defense and the witness's statement together with other evidence.

As a result of this evaluation, since the doubt regarding the commission of the crime could not be dispelled, no conviction judgment was rendered.

Are an Acquittal and the Dismissal of a Case the Same Thing in Criminal Proceedings?

An acquittal decision, a decision of no grounds for punishment, and a decision of dismissal of the case are types of judgments that produce different legal consequences.

An acquittal is rendered when one of the grounds set forth in Article 223 of the CMK exists.

The dismissal of a case, on the other hand, may arise for different reasons, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations or the occurrence of other statutory grounds for dismissal.

In the reviewed case file, the proceedings were not terminated due to the statute of limitations. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the court concluded that it was not established that the offense was committed by the defendant, and a judgment of acquittal was rendered.

Therefore, it is incorrect to characterize the decision as “the case was dismissed” or “a decision that there is no ground for imposing a penalty was rendered.”

Acquittal Verdict of the Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court

Although a public lawsuit was filed against the defendant for the offense of drug trafficking, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction to substantiate the charge.

In the reasoned decision, stating that it was not established that the offense was committed by the defendant, a judgment of acquittal was rendered pursuant to Article 223/2-e of the CMK .

The court additionally ruled that the trial expenses shall be borne by the Treasury.

The decision was rendered unanimously on 02.03.2023.

The presented reasoned decision text demonstrates this acquittal judgment. Since there is no additional document regarding the subsequent appellate proceedings of the decision or the date on which it became final, no finalized outcome is asserted regarding these matters.

Legal Significance of the Case in Which Atty. Batın YILMAZ Acted as Defense Counsel

In the case before the Istanbul 16th Assize Court under docket number 2022/91 E. Atty. Batın YILMAZ acted as defense counsel for the accused.

The legally significant aspect of the decision is that the accusation of drug trafficking was based solely on the statement of another individual, and there was an insufficient level of concrete, independent evidence corroborating this statement.

The seizure of narcotics in the case file and the accusation of the defendant by another person were not deemed sufficient by the court as proof that the defendant committed drug trafficking.

The court took into consideration the lack of sufficient evidence, other than the testimony incriminating the defendant, to connect them to drug trafficking.

This decision serves as a concrete practical example demonstrating that in criminal proceedings, not only must the alleged crime be asserted, but it must also be proven to have been committed by the accused.

For general explanations regarding the evaluation of evidence, the right to defense, and the trial process in criminal investigations and prosecutions, please visit our criminal law page you may review.

What Does This Acquittal Decision Signify for Other Criminal Cases?

An acquittal rendered by a heavy penal court does not automatically entail the same outcome in a criminal case filed against another defendant.

In every criminal case, the evidence, the imputed crime, the defendant's defense, and the specific circumstances of the incident are evaluated separately.

The value of the examined file in terms of other drug trafficking cases becomes evident in the court's method of evaluating evidence.

Particularly:

• The joint examination of another person's incriminating statement along with other evidence against the defendant,
• Determining from whom and where the narcotic substance was seized,
• Investigating through which evidence the act of drug trafficking is linked to the defendant,
• Assessing whether the level of certainty required for a conviction has been reached,
• The application of the principle of in dubio pro reo (the defendant benefits from the doubt) to the specific case

demonstrates the importance that such issues carry in criminal proceedings.

Similarly, the issue of insufficient evidence may also arise in different types of crimes. The analysis on our website regarding the crime of forgery of a promissory note and the acquittal decision addresses the problem of proof with respect to another type of crime.

Among criminal investigations involving a foreign element, in our legal analysis regarding the crime of migrant smuggling, however, distinct elements of the crime and precedents of the Yargıtay are evaluated.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an acquittal be rendered in the crime of drug trafficking?

Yes. If it cannot be proven with sufficient evidence that the accused committed the imputed offense of drug trafficking, an acquittal ruling may be rendered pursuant to Article 223/2-e of the CMK. The decision of the Istanbul 16th High Criminal Court, numbered E.2022/91 and K.2023/85, serves as a concrete example of this.

Can a conviction for drug trafficking be rendered based on the testimony of a single witness?

The probative value of witness testimony is evaluated based on the specific circumstances of the case. The mere presence of a single witness does not automatically necessitate an acquittal. However, in the examined file, the inculpatory statement of another person against the accused was not deemed sufficient for conviction as it was not supported by sufficient independent evidence.

Is an acquittal mandatory if the drugs were not found in the possession of the accused?

No. Even if the narcotics are not seized from the accused, the act of trafficking can be proven through other lawfully obtained evidence. However, in the examined case, the failure to seize narcotics from the accused was evaluated together with other evidentiary deficiencies.

Is another person accusing the defendant considered sufficient evidence?

Such statements may be evaluated as evidence. Nevertheless, the reliability, consistency, and corroboration of the statement by other evidence are crucial. The sufficiency of an inculpatory statement for a conviction is examined separately in each case.

What does the principle of in dubio pro reo (the benefit of the doubt) mean?

In criminal proceedings, any irremediable reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offense cannot be used as a ground for conviction against the accused. The guilt of the accused must be proven with a sufficient degree of certainty.

What does an acquittal pursuant to Article 223/2-e of the CMK mean?

Article 223/2-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure numbered 5271 governs the issuance of an acquittal judgment in cases where it is not established that the imputed offense was committed by the accused.

Are drug trafficking and drug use the same offense?

No. Drug trafficking is regulated under Article 188 of the TCK, whereas purchasing, accepting, possessing, or using narcotics for personal use is regulated under Article 191 of the TCK. The elements and legal consequences of these offenses differ.

Why did the Istanbul 16th Heavy Penal Court render an acquittal?

The court ruled that the offense was not established, considering that there was no concrete evidence sufficient for conviction other than the inculpatory statement of another person against the accused; that there was no physical surveillance regarding drug sales, no direct eyewitness testimony of a sale, and no narcotic substances seized from the accused.

What was the Public Prosecutor's request in the case file?

In his opinion on the merits, the Public Prosecutor requested an acquittal, stating that it could not be proven with sufficient evidence for conviction that the defendant engaged in drug trafficking.

Conclusion: Acquittal Due to Insufficient Evidence for Conviction Under the Allegation of Drug Trafficking

In the judgment of the Istanbul 16th High Criminal Court dated 02.03.2023, numbered 2022/91 Basis and 2023/85 Decision,, it has been ruled that it could not be proven with sufficient and convincing evidence that the defendant, on trial for the offense of drug trafficking, committed the imputed crime.

In which Atty. Batın YILMAZ acted as defense counsel for the accused, In the case file, the court evaluated that the incriminating statement of an individual against whom proceedings were initiated for drug use was not adequately supported by other concrete evidence.

The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction to impute the act of drug trafficking to the defendant, and a judgment of acquittal was rendered pursuant to Article 223/2-e of the CMK was rendered.

This decision illustrates how the presumption of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo (the benefit of the doubt) are applied in criminal proceedings with respect to a specific criminal accusation.

The fundamental legal conclusion to be drawn from the decision is that the mere existence of an allegation that a crime has been committed is not sufficient for a conviction; rather, it must be established by legally sufficient evidence that the charged act was committed by the accused.

Legal Resources and Related Reviews

• 
  Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 – TCK Articles 188 and 191
  
• 
  Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 – CMK Articles 217 and 223
  
• 
  General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation – Distinction of drug offenses and evaluation criteria
  
• 
  Court of Cassation – Evaluation of evidence in the crime of drug trafficking
  
• 
  Constitutional Court – Presumption of innocence and burden of proof
  
• 
  Constitutional Court – Presumption of innocence and proof of conviction
  
• 
  Criminal law – Investigation, prosecution, and defense processes
  
• 
  Insufficiency of evidence and acquittal in the crime of forgery of promissory notes
  
• 
  Legal analysis regarding the crime of migrant smuggling and acquittal decisions
  
• 
  Review of the decision regarding the revocation of the arrest warrant in criminal proceedings
  
• 
  Sample court decisions and legal analyses
  

Author Information

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

Legal information: This article is a legal analysis of the judgment of the Istanbul 16th High Criminal Court dated 02.03.2023, numbered 2022/91 E. and 2023/85 K. The identification information of the defendant and other individuals has not been disclosed. This analysis is limited to the reasoning of the decision and does not imply that the same outcome will be achieved in different criminal cases.