Under Turkish criminal law, intentional injury resulting in death constitutes a distinct offense regulated in Article 87/4 of the Turkish Penal Code. This crime occurs when a person deliberately inflicts bodily harm on another individual and that act later leads to the victim’s death, although the perpetrator did not act with the purpose of killing. The offense represents a legally complex category positioned between intentional homicide and negligent homicide, requiring careful evaluation of intent, causation, and responsibility.

Unlike intentional homicide, where death is the intended outcome, this offense is characterized by an intent limited to bodily harm. The fatal result arises as a consequence of that harm and is attributable to negligence rather than direct intent. For this reason, the crime is classified as an aggravated result-based offense, in which liability expands because of the severity of the consequence rather than a change in the nature of the initial intent.

For criminal liability to arise, the perpetrator must first commit an act that qualifies as intentional injury within the meaning of Article 86 of the Penal Code. This includes conduct that causes physical pain, damages bodily integrity, or impairs the victim’s health or sensory functions. The method of injury is not decisive; striking, pushing, or using an object may all satisfy the requirement, provided that the act is deliberate and directed at the victim’s body.

The second essential element is the occurrence of death following the injury. Death may occur immediately or after a period of medical treatment, complications, or deterioration of the victim’s condition. What matters is not the timing but whether a legally relevant connection exists between the injury and the fatal outcome. Establishing this connection is primarily a medical and legal assessment and often depends on expert forensic opinions.

Causation plays a central role in determining responsibility. It must be shown that the injury inflicted by the perpetrator contributed to or accelerated the death. Turkish courts do not require the injury to be the sole cause of death; it is sufficient that it constitutes a significant factor within the chain of events leading to the fatal result. Where the death results entirely from an independent and unforeseeable cause, criminal responsibility for the fatal outcome may not be attributed to the perpetrator.

Beyond physical causation, modern criminal law applies the concept of objective attribution. This requires an evaluation of whether the risk created by the perpetrator’s conduct materialized in the specific result that occurred. The law does not impose unlimited responsibility for every consequence that follows an act. The death must fall within the scope of danger created by the injury and within the protective purpose of the legal norm violated. If the fatal outcome arises from an abnormal or extraordinary sequence of events unrelated to the original risk, attribution may be excluded.

A frequent issue in practice concerns victims who suffer from pre-existing illnesses such as heart disease or bone fragility. In such cases, courts examine whether the injury triggered or significantly worsened the medical condition leading to death. The presence of an underlying illness does not automatically break the causal link. If the injury hastened the fatal process, criminal liability may still be established.

Medical intervention after the injury may also complicate the analysis. Errors in treatment do not necessarily absolve the perpetrator of responsibility unless they constitute a completely independent and dominant cause of death. Only when medical negligence replaces the original injury as the primary cause of death can the chain of causation be considered broken.

Another important consideration is the victim’s own conduct. Refusal of treatment or risky behavior following the injury does not automatically exclude liability, as such reactions are often foreseeable. Criminal responsibility is removed only when the victim’s conduct is entirely autonomous and unforeseeable, severing the legal connection between the injury and the death.

The distinction between intentional injury resulting in death and intentional homicide depends primarily on the perpetrator’s mental state. If death is intended or consciously accepted as a probable outcome, the offense becomes homicide. Courts evaluate this by examining the nature of the act, the intensity of force used, the part of the body targeted, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Repeated blows to vital organs or the use of deadly weapons may indicate acceptance of the fatal risk and thus support a finding of intent to kill.

Article 87/4 prescribes a penalty that is more severe than that imposed for ordinary intentional injury or negligent homicide. The justification for this heavier punishment lies in the combination of deliberate violence and irreversible harm to life. Sentencing takes into account the degree of negligence regarding the result, the manner of commission, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in the case.

Intentional injury resulting in death illustrates the delicate balance between intent and consequence in criminal law. It reflects the principle that a person who deliberately harms another must bear responsibility for the foreseeable and legally attributable outcomes of that harm, even when death was not the intended result. The offense requires a nuanced assessment of causation, fault, and objective attribution, ensuring that punishment corresponds not only to the act itself but also to the gravity of its consequences.