{"id":1143,"date":"2023-10-14T14:07:54","date_gmt":"2023-10-14T14:07:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/?p=1143"},"modified":"2023-10-14T14:07:54","modified_gmt":"2023-10-14T14:07:54","slug":"yargitay-karari-adli-belge-inceleme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/2023\/10\/14\/yargitay-karari-adli-belge-inceleme\/","title":{"rendered":"YARGITAY KARARI &#8211; Adli Belge \u0130nceleme"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 10.06.2014 tarihli 2014\/14886 Esas ve 2014\/16879 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>DAVA : Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki taraflarca istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi . .. .. taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc :<\/p>\n<p>KARAR : Alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bonoya dayal\u0131 olarak kambiyo senetlerine mahsus haciz yolu ile icra takibine ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bor\u00e7luya \u00f6rnek 10 numaral\u0131 \u00f6deme emri tebli\u011fi \u00fczerine bor\u00e7lunun \u0130\u0130K\u2019nun 168\/4.maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yasal 5 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcrede icra mahkemesine ba\u015fvurarak, imzaya itiraz etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan Kayseri <strong>Kriminal<\/strong> Polis Laboratuvar\u0131ndan al\u0131nan 05.12.2013 tarihli raporda senetteki imzan\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ve muhtemel M.. K..&#8217;\u0131n elinden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131, mahkemece grafoloji ve sahtecilik uzman\u0131 bilirki\u015fiden al\u0131nan 24.12.2013 tarihli raporda da senette M.. K.. ad\u0131na at\u0131l\u0131 <strong>bor\u00e7lu<\/strong> imzalar\u0131n\u0131n M.. K..&#8217;\u0131n <strong>eli mahsul\u00fc<\/strong> olmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ve muhtemel oldu\u011funun bildirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, itiraz \u00fczerine mahkemece <strong>Adli T\u0131p Kurumu<\/strong> Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131&#8217;ndan al\u0131nan 17.02.2014 tarihli raporda ise imzan\u0131n bor\u00e7lu M.. K..&#8217;\u0131n eli \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir bir bulgu saptanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f beyan edildi\u011fi, mahkemece, <strong>imzan\u0131n<\/strong> bor\u00e7lu <strong>eli \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc<\/strong> olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n alacakl\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ispat edilemedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle raporlar\u0131n bor\u00e7lu lehine yorumlanarak <strong>imza<\/strong> <strong>itiraz<\/strong>\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n<p>Somut olayda <strong>imza<\/strong> incelemesi ile ilgili savc\u0131l\u0131kta ald\u0131r\u0131lan rapor ile mahkemece <strong>grafoloji<\/strong> ve <strong>sahtecilik<\/strong> uzman\u0131ndan ald\u0131r\u0131lan 24.12.2013 tarihli rapor ayn\u0131 y\u00f6nde olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, itiraz \u00fczerine <strong>Adli T\u0131p Kurumu<\/strong>&#8216;ndan al\u0131nan <strong>rapor<\/strong>da <strong>imza<\/strong>n\u0131n bor\u00e7lunun <strong>eli \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc<\/strong> oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir bulgu saptanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan <strong>raporlar aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki<\/strong> olu\u015fmu\u015ftur. O halde, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn alacakl\u0131da oldu\u011fu ve alacakl\u0131n\u0131n <strong>\u00e7eli\u015fkiyi<\/strong> gidermek \u00fczere yeni <strong>bilirki\u015fi<\/strong> incelemesi istedi\u011fi nazara al\u0131narak \u00e7eli\u015fkinin giderilmesi i\u00e7in mahkemece <strong>uzman<\/strong> bilirki\u015filerden olu\u015facak bir kuruldan yeniden <strong>rapor<\/strong> al\u0131narak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsizdir.\u201ddenilerek bozma karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi,<\/p>\n<p>\u00d6zetle; savc\u0131l\u0131k ve mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131nan imza inceleme raporlar\u0131 imzan\u0131n sahte oldu\u011funu belirtirken, Adli T\u0131p Kurumu&#8217;nun <strong>raporu imza<\/strong>n\u0131n bor\u00e7lunun kendi imzas\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair bir kan\u0131t bulamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu durumda, raporlar aras\u0131nda bir uyumsuzluk vard\u0131r. Alacakl\u0131, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r ve uyumsuzlu\u011fu ortadan kald\u0131rmak i\u00e7in yeni bir <strong>bilirki\u015fi<\/strong> incelemesi talep etmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle, mahkeme, uyumsuzlu\u011fu \u00e7\u00f6zmek i\u00e7in uzman bilirki\u015filerden olu\u015fan bir heyetten yeni bir rapor istemeli ve raporun sonucuna g\u00f6re karar vermesi gerekirken mahkeme, yetersiz bir inceleme yaparak h\u00fckm\u00fc vermesi yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yarg\u0131tay 12. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan verilen 10.06.2014 tarihli 2014\/14886 Esas ve 2014\/16879 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131nda \u00f6zetle; &nbsp; DAVA : Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki taraflarca istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya mahallinden daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi . .. .. taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1144,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[20,16,19,18,17,21],"class_list":["post-1143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bilirkisi","tag-imza","tag-itiraz","tag-rapor","tag-senet","tag-uzman"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1143"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1143"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1143\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1145,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1143\/revisions\/1145"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mecidiyekoywebtasarim.com\/istanbulkriminalofis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}