This is the English version of a Turkish article. The original, with further detail and linked petition templates, is at Meşru Savunma: Kendini Savunmak Suç Mudur?.
Self-defence is not a ground for reducing a sentence — it is a ground excluding unlawfulness. Where its conditions are met the act ceases to be an offence and the accused is acquitted. But all four conditions must be present together, and the point on which most files turn is whether the attack had already ended.
You were attacked, you responded, and now there is an investigation. The sentence heard most often is: “but I was defending myself.”
That defence has a legal foundation. This article sets out the four conditions, what happens where the limits are exceeded, and how the defence is established on the file.
What Is Self-Defence?
Under Article 25 of the Criminal Code, self-defence is an act committed out of the necessity of repelling an unlawful attack on oneself or another, proportionately to the attack in the circumstances of the moment.
The most important point is often missed: self-defence is not a mitigating factor. It is a ground excluding unlawfulness. Where its conditions are met the act is not an offence at all and the accused is acquitted.
The Article also governs necessity: a person is not punished for an act committed to protect against a grave and certain danger, where there was no other means of protection and the act was proportionate to the danger.
The Four Conditions
- The attack must be unlawful. There is no self-defence against lawful conduct — a lawful arrest by the police, for instance.
- The attack must have begun, or be certain to begin. Conduct directed at a distant threat that has not yet materialised is not self-defence.
- The defence must be necessary. It is available where there was no other way to repel the attack.
- The defence must be proportionate. The means used and the harm caused must be measured against the gravity of the attack.
Where one of the four is missing, self-defence is not complete, and the events are assessed instead as exceeding its limits or as unjust provocation, according to the circumstances.
An Attack That Has Ended: The Commonest Mistake
Most files turn on a single point: a response given after the attack had ended.
Conduct after the attacker has withdrawn, started to run away or been rendered harmless is no longer defence. Such an act is assessed as intentional injury according to the circumstances; a reduction for unjust provocation may arise, but self-defence is not accepted.
The same applies to conduct carried out later by way of revenge. The greater the interval, the weaker the claim of self-defence becomes.
Exceeding the Limits
Where the measure of the defence is exceeded, the law draws a twofold distinction.
Where the limit was exceeded through fault, the act remains an offence but the sentence is reduced. Where, however, it was exceeded through the agitation, fear or panic caused by the attack suffered, no punishment is imposed.
That second limb matters particularly in sudden events — an intrusion into a home at night, a threat with a weapon. Conveying the state of mind the events produced is therefore important.
| Situation | Outcome |
|---|---|
| All four conditions met | Acquittal; the act is not an offence |
| Limits exceeded through fault | The offence stands; the sentence is reduced |
| Limits exceeded through agitation, fear or panic | No punishment is imposed |
| Response after the attack ended | Not self-defence; assessed as intentional injury |
| Against lawful conduct | No self-defence |
| Grave and certain danger, no other option | Necessity: no punishment |
Self-defence excludes unlawfulness; it is not a reduction in sentence, and where it applies the result is an acquittal.
How Is the Defence Established?
The claim is not proved by a sentence. What matters on the file:
- A forensic medical report. Whether you too bear marks of assault is the most concrete evidence that there was an attack. Attend hospital after the event without fail.
- Camera footage. Workplace, building and street cameras keep recordings for a short time; ask for them in the first days.
- Witnesses who saw who started the attack.
- Correspondence before the event. Threatening messages, earlier complaints, and any protection orders.
- The police record. Getting the first observations at the scene recorded correctly is a stage that is hard to put right later.
People who have defended themselves often go home without seeing a doctor, because they were not the one who complained. The marks on you are the most concrete evidence that an attack occurred — and they fade. Attend hospital the same day, describe every symptom, and keep the report.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is self-defence a reduction in sentence?
No. It is a ground excluding unlawfulness: where its conditions are met the act is not an offence and the result is an acquittal.
What are the conditions?
The attack must be unlawful; it must have begun or be certain to begin; the defence must be necessary; and it must be proportionate to the attack.
What if I responded after the attack ended?
That is not self-defence. It is assessed as intentional injury, though a reduction for unjust provocation may arise.
What if I went too far?
Where the limits were exceeded through fault, the sentence is reduced. Where they were exceeded through the agitation, fear or panic caused by the attack, no punishment is imposed.
How do I prove I was attacked?
A forensic medical report on your own injuries, camera footage obtained early, witnesses to who started it, earlier threatening messages, and an accurate police record.