AFYONKARAHİSAR - Attorney Elif Tuğba Şahin stating that it is unlawful to demand punishment for ‘theft’ for the 16-year-old Ş.C.K., who had been subjected to violence by his bosses. Şahin said that the prosecution demanded a penalty based on a witness whom he said he did not believe.

 

In Afyonkarahisar on March 7, 16-year-old Ş.C.K. were beaten by his bosses Akif A. and A.S. for five hours because he wanted his daily wage of 200 TRY. The first hearing of the case was held yesterday at the Afyonkarahisar 4th Criminal Court of First Instance. While the prosecutor requested penalty for Akif A. and A.S for injury, he requested a penalty for Ş.C.K who was beaten by his bosses for 'theft'.

 

Elif Tuğba Şahin, the attorney of Ş.C.K., who was battered and accused of "theft", evaluated the opinion of the prosecutor for Mesopotamia Agency (MA).

 

WITNESS IS AN EMPLOYEE OF Ş.C.K's BOSS

 

Stating that the defendants made unfounded and contradictory statements to acquit themselves during the hearing, Şahin pointed out that the statements of the person who was the only witness to the incident considered to be more important than the file itself. Şahin said: "The witness was someone who had been working with those who battered Ş.C.K, for nearly two years. It was very obvious that the witness was made to give that statement. In other words, both the judge and the prosecutor were aware that the witness made false statements yesterday."

 

THE PROSECUTOR EXPRESSED OPINION BASED ON WITNESS STATEMENT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE

 

Noting that the prosecutor requested a penalty for her client even though the fact that the witness statement was a lie, and the lie was put into record by the court,

Şahin stated, "This is the biggest lawlessness in this file. The fact that the witness lied went into the minutes. I think that the judges will decide in favour of the prosecutor's opinion at the next hearing and it will be an unlawfull decision. The other two defendant should be penalized for 'deprivation of liberty' not just 'actual bodily harm'.

 

DECLARATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS

 

Stating that they were trying to simplify the beating incident in the statements of the defendants, Şahin said, “In other words, they said the beating was not a big issue. If they did not beat him very hard, he would not have suffered such heavy damages. Many images of how my client was battered had already been reflected in the press. Despite this, the defendants made statements as if they had only slapped him in the face."

 

THE ACCUSATION HAS CHANGED

 

Reminding that a lawsuit was filed against the defendants on the charge of "depriving of liberty by using force, threat and fraud", Şahin said that the accusation was changed to "simple injury" since there was no serious consequences. Şahin stated: “The trial without arrest was taken as a basis, as it was seen as a simple injury. The eviction was an early decision. But it was not a decision that we did not expect. The decision shocked my client and his family, but when we look at it legally, such accusations are based on trial without arrest."

 

'THIS IS NOT HOW A CRIMINAL TRIAL GOES'

 

Referring to the allegation of “theft” against her client, Şahin stated, “There is no concrete evidence regarding this accusation. The prosecutor's opinion is based on the statements of the defendants alone, in other words, a punishment request was made against my client based on abstract evidence. Criminal proceedings are not like that. Then everyone can accuse everyone of such innuendo and get them to be punished."

 

MA / Naci Kaya