Analysis and criticism of Article 435 of the Islamic Penal Code regarding the necessity of blood money and the person responsible for paying it in the event of the murderer's death or suicide.

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Yazdan Taherabadi

Higher level lecturer at Qom Seminary, researcher at the Higher Institute of Jurisprudence and Islamic Sciences

10.22067/jfiqh.2025.92454.1930

Abstract

One of the important questions regarding Article 435 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392 is whether it includes suicide and natural death. If the article includes both, first the deceased is the guarantor, and if he does not have the means, the sane person, and in the event of their lack of sane person or financial inability, the Public Treasury is responsible for paying the blood money. Narrations have commented on who is responsible for paying the blood money in the event of the death or even escape of the murderer, and in some cases the aforementioned order has been adopted. However, the narrations and the law have not explicitly commented on suicide and natural death, and it is not clear whether the same order of death can be accepted in the event of suicide and natural death of the murderer? This work has examined the issue within the framework of jurisprudence, using an analytical method and with the aim of discovering who is responsible for paying blood money in the case of suicide and natural death, and with the approach of analyzing and criticizing the legislator's theory in Article 435 of the Islamic Penal Code. The research findings indicate that although the legal article and narrations include suicide, unlike natural death, the order mentioned in the legal article, which is based on some narrations, is not correct and the treasury is not a guarantor.

Keywords

Suicide

natural death

death of a certain person does not invalidate

Article 435 of the Islamic Penal Code

blood money

Subjects

• Criminal jurisprudence

---