An Islamic Inquiry into the Legal Void of Criminal Liability for Murder in Case of False Testimony; from Exclusive to Joint Liability

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
This study delves into the domain of criminal liability in instances of false testimony within the framework of Islamic penal code of Islamic Republic of Iran, with a particular emphasis on the Iranian Islamic Penal Code of 1392 SH. The act of bearing witness plays a pivotal role in the adjudication process in Islamic law, serving as a critical means of crime proof. However, the veracity of testimony becomes a grave concern when witnesses, intentionally or unintentionally, provide false testimony, leading to wrongful convictions. This paper specifically scrutinizes scenarios wherein false testimonies lead to the wrongful retaliation [Qisas] of an accused individual, under the claims of murder, exploring the resultant legal and moral ramifications. It dissects the layers of accountability, distinguishing between scenarios where witnesses act independently or in conspiracy with the victim's next of kin/ avenger of blood, and the implications of their actions on the adjudication of capital punishment.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The core inquiry of this research revolves around the determination of criminal liability for the wrongful death of an accused person due to false testimony in Islamic law and Islamic penal code. It seeks to answer: "in instances where false testimony leads to the wrongful conviction and retaliation of an accused, who bears the criminal liability, especially under the conditions of conspiracy and non-conspiracy between witnesses and the victim's next of kin?" This question probes the depths of jurisprudential principles and legal statutes to uncover the nuances of liability and justice in such circumstances.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The research hypothesis posits that in cases of false testimony resulting in wrongful retaliation, the allocation of criminal liability varies significantly based on the presence or absence of conspiracy between the witnesses and the victim's next of kin. It hypothesizes that: without conspiracy, the lying witnesses are solely responsible for the wrongful death, irrespective of whether the retaliation is carried out by the court's execution officer or the next of kin.
     In contrast, when a conspiracy exists, and the next of kin personally executes the accused, the liability primarily falls on the next of kin. However, if the retaliation is performed by the court's execution officer, the criminal liability is jointly shared between the conspiring witnesses and the next of kin.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research employs a doctrinal methodology, a traditional approach in legal scholarship that involves a comprehensive analysis of legal texts, statutes, and jurisprudential opinions. By meticulously examining the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and the extensive body of Islamic law literature, the study seeks to interpret and reconcile the principles of Islamic law with contemporary legal challenges posed by false testimony. The framework for analysis is structured around a comparative examination of the conditions under which testimony is given and the subsequent legal outcomes of wrongful retaliation due to such testimony.
     Through the lens Islamic law and the statutory provisions of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, the study evaluates the conditions and implications of bearing false witness in cases leading to capital punishment. The analysis is enriched by a critical review of scholarly works and the opinions of penal law experts, aiming to bridge the gap in literature concerning the criminal liability for wrongful reatliation precipitated by false testimony.
     The research meticulously categorizes the assumptions into two main scenarios: one without conspiracy between witnesses and the next of kin, and the other with such conspiracy. Each scenario is further subdivided based on who executes the retribution sentence, whether it be the court's execution officer or the next of kin. This structured approach allows for a nuanced understanding of the legal and ethical considerations that govern the allocation of criminal liability in these contexts.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The research meticulously investigates the allocation of criminal liability in instances of false testimony leading to wrongful retaliation under Islamic law and Iranian penal law. The findings elucidate a nuanced differentiation in criminal liability based on the presence or absence of conspiracy between the witnesses and the victim's next of kin, alongside the direct executor of the retribution sentence.
     Without Conspiracy: the study confirms that when false testimony originates from witnesses acting independently, without any conspiracy with the next of kin, the witnesses bear sole criminal liability for the wrongful death of the accused. This outcome persists regardless of whether the retribution is executed by the next of kin or a court's officer, highlighting the principle that the executioner, acting in ignorance of the testimony's falsity, does not bear criminal liability. This consensus among Islamic jurists underscores a critical aspect of Islamic penal code: the sanctity of truthfulness in testimony and the severe consequences of deviation.
     With Conspiracy: conversely, when false testimony stems from a deliberate conspiracy between the witnesses and the next of kin, the allocation of liability becomes more complex. If the next of kin personally executes the accused, liability for the murder falls exclusively on them. This finding points to the prioritization of direct action in the attribution of criminal liability within Islamic penal law. However, if the execution is carried out by an officer upon the conspiratorial testimony, both the witnesses and the next of kin share criminal liability. This shared liability underscores the compounded culpability inherent in the act of conspiring to produce false testimony, leading to wrongful retaliation.
     The research highlights the importance of intentionality and direct action in determining criminal liability, reflecting the depth of Islamic law thought and its application in contemporary legal contexts.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The investigation into the criminal liability for murder in cases of false testimony, underpinned by Islamic law and the Iranian Islamic Penal Code, reveals a framework of ethical and legal considerations. The study concludes that: witnesses providing false testimony without conspiracy are solely liable for the wrongful death, emphasizing the individual responsibility for truthfulness.
     In cases of conspiracy, the liability shifts significantly. If the next of kin acts as the executioner, they bear full responsibility for the murder, highlighting the juridical emphasis on direct action. Conversely, when an execution officer enforces the sentence based on conspiratorial testimony, both the witnesses and the next of kin share the liability, reflecting the shared moral and legal culpability in causing wrongful death.
     This nuanced approach to criminal liability, distinguishing between direct and indirect actors, and considering the presence of conspiracy, reflects the intricate balance between justice, intention, and action in Islamic penal code. The findings not only contribute to the scholarly understanding of testimony and liability in Islamic law but also offer critical insights for legal practitioners navigating similar cases within jurisdictions governed by these principles.
     The implications of this study are profound, providing a Islamic basis for re-evaluating legal practices and reinforcing the ethical imperative of truthfulness in testimony. It underscores the need for rigorous legal mechanisms to discern truth and prevent the grave injustice of wrongful retaliation based on false testimony.
     In sum, this research illuminates the dynamics of criminal liability in the context of false testimony, offering a Islamic-legal framework that navigates the delicate balance between truth, justice, and moral responsibility.