فارسی
Français
The second joint meeting of the Judiciary Studies Department of the Judiciary Research Institute was held with the cooperation of the Student Basij and the Faculty of Law of the Islamic Azad University, Tehran Branch.
In this meeting, which was held in the presence of Dr. Mohammad Barani, the judge issuing the decision of the 17th branch of the Supreme Court, Dr. Mohammad-Reza Zandi and Dr. Roya Asiai, academic staff members of the Islamic Azad University, criticized and reviewed the court’s decision and the 17th branch of the Supreme Court.
In explaining the case, Dr. Barani mentioned the suspicious murder of a woman who had a history of conflict with her husband. According to the wife’s statements in the last conflict, the man inflicted severe injuries on the woman by hitting her left leg and pouring boiling water on her in the bathroom for ten minutes under the pretext of hydrotherapy and also hitting her head hard and after the conflict He also did not take him to a medical center.
Dr. Barani pointed out that the man was convicted of intentional homicide in the verdict of the two lower courts, and stated: In the Supreme Court, citing the fact that simply pouring boiling water is not fatal, and that man may have known and paid attention to this issue at that moment. If not, the verdict was given for intentional homicide.
In the continuation of the meeting, Dr. Zandi explained the criterion of awareness and attention and three personal theories, a typical theory and a mixed theory about this case, and said: According to the law, if the act is typically fatal, the lack of awareness of the perpetrator must be proven and the positive point of the decision of the court branch is the necessity of the perpetrator’s knowledge and understanding while committing the murder.
Dr. Asiai also said regarding the fact that the act is usually fatal: With various arguments, the verdict of retribution of the primitive branches is correct.
After reviewing the decision, the people present symbolically as members of the criminal insistence panel of the Supreme Court, announced their vote in agreement with the ruling of the lower court or the decision of the court branch, and the result of the majority vote of those present was approving the retribution sentence issued by the lower court.