The verdict was overturned in the Torbalı explosion case in which five people died

There has been a new development in the trial regarding the explosion that took place in a restaurant in Izmir's Torbalı district and in which five people lost their lives. Izmir Regional Court of Justice did not find the convictions of the defendants in the case to be lawful due to the fact that the differences in fault assessment between the expert reports were not resolved and the incomplete investigation was carried out.

It was stated by the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice that the different expert assessments regarding the fault cases of Mustafa Koç, who changed the cylinder one day before the explosion, Gülten Kul, the business owner, and Osman İnce, the regional manager of the cylinder company, were not discussed sufficiently, and whether the provisions of conscious negligence on the part of Koç and Kul were to be applied were not evaluated based on concrete actions.

Pointing out that although the first instance court relied on the report at the investigation stage for Kul and different reports for Koç and İnce, it did not explain the contradictions between these evaluations with concrete reasons, the chamber made the following evaluations:

"- When determining fault, the court must rely on concrete evidence and justifications, in accordance with the case, and for this reason, the legal situation of the defendants is evaluated after receiving a report from a panel of 5 experts, consisting of expert faculty members working in the departments of chemistry, machinery, metallurgy and materials engineering, petroleum and natural gas and civil engineering at the technical faculties of universities, who are also labor and social security experts, on whether there is a fault in the incident that can be directed to the defendants, the deceased or a third party, and what the degree of fault is, if any. is required."

The chamber stated that it was not considered sufficient for the first instance court to decide that there was no need to apply the provisions of conscious negligence on the grounds that there was no evidence that the explosion outcome was foreseen.

In this context, it was emphasized that whether the actions of Koç and Kul went beyond simple negligence and reached the level of conscious negligence should be discussed based on the characteristics of the concrete incident.