Semra Aysal, who is 7 months pregnant, fell from a height of approximately 300 meters on the rocks where she went to take photos in the Butterfly Valley in Fethiye, where she went for a walk with her husband Hakan Aysal, on June 19, 2018.
During the check made by the teams descending to the cliff, it was determined that Semra Aysal was dead. Aysal's body was buried in Istanbul. As part of the investigation, Hakan Aysal was arrested in November 2020 for allegedly pushing his wife to death. A lawsuit was filed against Aysal at the Fethiye High Criminal Court for 'premeditated murder'.
In the indictment of the case, it was claimed that Hakan Aysal had taken out a personal accident insurance with a guarantee amount of 400 thousand lira for his wife, with himself as the sole beneficiary (the person to whom the price would be paid), and that in order to receive this money, he pushed Semra Aysal downstairs after waiting for the place to be deserted. At the verdict hearing on February 15, 2022, Aysal was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment on the charge of "deliberately and premeditated murder of his pregnant wife" by the majority vote of the court panel. The aggravated life imprisonment sentence given to Hakan Aysal was also approved by the Supreme Court.
9-ARTICLE OBJECTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT PROSECUTOR TO THE DECISION
Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, Ömer Taş, objected to the decision approved by the Supreme Court in 2024. In his 9-article petition of objection, Prosecutor Taş stated that there were no eyewitnesses in the concrete incident, and that the existing evidence that raises suspicion that the defendant Hakan Aysal committed the crime is not related to the moment of the incident, but to some transactions and events that took place before the incident. Taş pointed out in his petition that it could not be proven that the life insurance policy was taken out by the defendant and said, "The most important evidence against the defendant is that he took out life insurance on behalf of his wife who died before marriage and was designated as the sole beneficiary. However, it could not be proven that the insurance in question was taken out by the defendant, and it was determined that the signatures and writings on the policy did not belong to the deceased and the defendant."
'IT IS NORMAL TO HAVE A SINGLE BENEFICIARY IN A POLICY'
Prosecutor Ömer Taş, who emphasized in his petition that it was not clear whether the defendant Aysal had an application to receive the insurance coverage after the death, stated, "It is normal for the defendant to be the sole beneficiary of the policy, and marrying the deceased and waiting for nearly a year to receive this money in terms of the amount of coverage is against the normal course of life." It was emphasized in the petition that it was not meaningful that the defendant Aysal impregnated his wife, whom he planned to kill, and that the claim that he was cold-blooded and unresponsive after the incident cannot be accepted as evidence that he committed the crime. In the research, it was determined that Semra Aysal used 2 consumer loans before marriage and 1 after marriage, and it was stated in the petition that using loans for expenses made before and after marriage did not constitute a situation contrary to the normal flow of life.
'NO CONFLICT OR HOSTILITY HAS BEEN DETECTED'
It was noted in the petition that there was no conflict or hostility between the defendant Aysal and his wife that was reflected in the courts or prosecutor's offices. The petition also included the statement of the witness Recep Şahin, who was found to have recorded images of the defendant Aysal and his wife before the incident. In Şahin's statement, it was stated that while the defendant Aysal was descending towards the scene, he turned and held his wife's hand and helped her down, and that they helped each other while descending and that there was nothing strange in their movements. It was underlined that all these issues could not be interpreted against the defendant Aysal, nor were they sufficient for conviction, and it was noted that it was extremely possible for Semra Aysal to lose her balance for a moment and fall.
'FREE FROM DOUBT, NO DEFINITE AND BELIEVABLE EVIDENCE'
It was emphasized in the petition that it was against the law to decide on the defendant Hakan Aysal's conviction instead of his acquittal, as there was not enough, definitive and convincing evidence, free from any doubt, for his conviction, and it was stated, "For these reasons, it is requested that the appeal requests be corrected and rejected on the merits, and the decision on correcting and approving the sentence be abolished, and the aggravated life imprisonment decision given for the defendant be reversed."
WAS RELEASED
The General Criminal Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals decided to release the defendant Hakan Aysal during the appeal review phase of the case file. Following the decision, Aysal, who had been detained for approximately 6 years, was released from Kırşehir High Security Penal Institution.
