In the case of singer Gül Tut (52), known as 'Güllü', falling from the window and losing her life in Yalova, the 'Reasoned Decision' of the aggravated life imprisonment sentence given to her daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter was announced. The court, by evaluating Sultan Nur Ulu's sworn witness statements, camera records, expert reports and other evidence in the file, decided to sentence Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter's mother, Gül Tut, to 'Aggravated Life Imprisonment' for the crime of 'intentional murder against women and descendants'.
Singer Gül Tut, known as 'Güllü', died on September 26, 2025, by falling from the window of her house in a 6-storey building located on Vali Akı Street, Harmanlar District, Çınarcık district of Yalova. Within the scope of the investigation launched after the incident that occurred at around 01.26, Gül Tut's daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and her friend Sultan Nur Ulu, who was at home on the night of the incident, were detained. Gülter was arrested on December 13, 2025, on the charge of "deliberate murder". House arrest was decided for Sultan Nur Ulu.
After the completion of the investigation, a lawsuit was filed against Gülter, demanding aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of "premeditated murder against the superior lineage". The first hearing of the case at Yalova 1st High Criminal Court was held on October 1, 2026. In the second hearing of the court on October 9, Gülter was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of "intentional murder against women and relatives". The court also decided to continue the defendant's detention.
After the Güllü Murder, Yalova 1st High Criminal Court announced its Reasoned Decision consisting of 25 pages. In the decision, it was stated that only Gül Tut, her daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and Sultan Nur Ulu were in the house at the time of the incident. As a result of the examination of house and apartment camera records, it was determined that no one other than these three people entered or left the house throughout the day before the incident and until the time of death. The court trusted the statement given by Sultan Nur Ulu, the only eyewitness of the incident, at the hearing. Ulu explained that Gül Tut came into the room at the time of the incident, and as he turned to the mirror, he saw Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter throwing his mother out of the window, holding her upper thigh from behind. Ulu, who said in his first statements that he did not see the moment of the fall, said later when asked why he made a different statement, he said that he was afraid that the defendant would hurt him and put the blame on him. The court considered that the witness's statements explaining this contradiction were consistent with each other.
In the decision, it was stated that Ulu did not have a concrete reason for hostility that required him to slander the defendant, that there was no other eyewitness in the room where the incident took place, and that his statement that he was afraid that the defendant would accuse him was supported by other statements in the file.
In the reasoned decision, according to the camera records, Gül Tut entered the toilet at around 01.22 on September 26, 2025, and left at around 01.23.58 and asked "Is everyone okay?" It was reported that he said and then headed towards his daughter's room. It was stated that at around 01.26.37, after Gül Tut fell, Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and Sultan Nur Ulu panicked and ran towards the outer door of the house and ran to the stairs. In the expert reports, it was noted that the two people in the room at the time of the incident were in close proximity to Gül Tut, that no sudden reflex shout was heard after the falling sounds, and that physical findings regarding the manner in which the incident occurred were examined. It was stated that no residue of the substance was found in the criminal investigation conducted upon the allegation that a slippery substance was found on the floor of the room where the incident took place. In the reports of the Forensic Medicine Institute, it was stated that there was no medical evidence that Gül Tut died from poisoning, and that the death occurred as a result of internal bleeding caused by heavy body trauma due to falling from a height, fractures, brain hemorrhage and internal organ injuries.
The court considered that it could not be determined exactly with the evidence in the file when the defendant decided in advance and precisely to kill his mother. It was stated that it could not be demonstrated that the conditions required for the crime of premeditation occurred between the taking of the crime decision and the execution of the action, and it was ruled that the crime of premeditated murder did not occur in line with the principle of benefit of doubt for the defendant. On the other hand, the court decided that it was determined that Sultan Nur Ulu deliberately killed Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter's mother, Gül Tut, by evaluating the sworn witness statements, camera records, expert reports and other evidence in the file.
Yalova 1st High Criminal Court sentenced Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter to aggravated life imprisonment for 'intentional murder against women and relatives'. The court decided that there was no need for a discretionary reduction for the defendant and that his detention should continue. It was stated that the decision can be appealed to the Bursa Regional Court of Justice within 2 weeks from the notification of the reasoned judgment.
Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter's Lawyer Merve Uçanok, in her statement to DHA Reporter regarding the reasoned decision, argued that the conviction decision was largely based on the statement of witness Sultan Nur Ulu. Uçanok stated that it was not explained with concrete and verifiable reasons why the witness statement was given priority and said, "This decision is against the law. We will use our rights to resort to all higher legal remedies. Justice is not just believing in a narrative, but proving that that narrative is confirmed by concrete evidence and has reached a certainty that cannot be explained otherwise." he said. Uçanok stated that a single witness statement that is not supported by other evidence and whose contradictions are not resolved cannot be considered sufficient for conviction.
