New details about the verdict in the case of Mona Heidari’s murder/the murder committed was only a matter of personal revenge

According to Fars news agency, citing the judiciary, last week, the spokesman of the judiciary in his press conference, in response to a reporter’s question about the case of a person who killed his wife last year with the help of his brother, said: In this case, Sajjad Haider Nawa is the accused. They are accused of being in charge of intentional murder, causing intentional injury to the victim and disrupting public order, and Haider Haider Nava is accused of being an accessory to the intentional murder of Mona Heydari.

He added: In the previous meetings, we mentioned that the parents of the deceased forgave the deceased, and considering that this part of the accusation can be forgiven, based on Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in cases where the crime has a private aspect and dignity, the case leads to the issuance of an order. A moratorium has been prosecuted, which is precisely the law implemented in this case.

The spokesperson of the judiciary added: But the general aspect of the crime remains, and based on this, in terms of the general aspect of the crime, the first-tier accused, in terms of being in charge of intentional murder, is sentenced to 7 and a half years in prison, and in terms of the general aspect of the offense of intentional assault, he is sentenced to 8 He has been sentenced to a month in prison and this verdict is final.

He added: The accused in the second tier has also been sentenced to 45 months in prison for being an accomplice in intentional murder, and the accused are currently in prison.

However, after the announcement of the verdict of the murderer of Mona Heidari, ambiguities were raised in some media and cyberspace regarding this case.

Some presented the sentence as disproportionate to the crime, and some, comparing this case with other cases, claimed that the murderer should have been given the title of “warrior”.

Jafar Sadeghmanesh, a lawyer, a former member of the academic staff of the university and a member of the think tank of human rights and citizenship, explained the legal aspects of the case of the murder of Mona Heydari Nava by her husband.

This former member of the academic staff of the university said: In many cases of charges in criminal laws, despite being very similar to each other in the material or psychological aspect, sometimes due to a small difference in one of the conditions of fulfillment, the charge is more or less important on the behavior of the perpetrator. And it causes a difference in the criminal title and as a result the sentence issued against two people whose behavior may be similar to each other.

He continued: For example, in the Islamic Penal Code regarding the crime of theft, we have at least 13 criminal titles, due to the difference of each one from the other in terms of the necessary conditions for fulfillment such as time, place, means, victim, manner of committing and consequences. Each of them is subject to one of the mentioned materials.

Sadegh Manesh said: The difference in the crime of course leads to different convictions, while for an ordinary person, there may be no difference between all types of these thefts, and in his judgment, he compared the verdict issued on the defendant who supposedly committed the theft of a travel tent in the earthquake-affected area. It belongs to someone else and another person who has committed theft of an even more expensive tent in a normal situation at the resort, hastily and out of ignorance to protest and say what is the verdict that has been issued?! Someone who stole a more expensive tent is punished more than someone who stole an ordinary tent; So, the judge must have been unaware, or there must have been an influence in the case, or there is a flaw in the law!

The former member of the academic faculty of the university added: The exact same thing happened with the sentence issued for the murderer of the late Heydari, and some people have made strange judgments about the sentence and claimed They say that the death sentence should have been issued in that case, because the behavior of the person who drew a weapon and killed someone and caused insecurity in the environment is muharibeh and is subject to Article 279 of the Islamic Penal Code.

Pulling a weapon with personal motivation is not considered as muharibeh

He went on to clarify: First, it should be said that according to Article 282 of the Islamic Penal Code and according to Article 283, one of the punishments listed in that article, the punishment for muharibeh is determined by the choice of the judge and according to the circumstances of the case and the crime committed. Secondly, the critics of the verdict issued Intentionally or unintentionally, they ignore the explicit wording of the mentioned article, which stipulates: “When someone with personal motivation pulls a weapon towards one or more specific persons and his action does not have a general aspect…, he is not considered as a belligerent.”

Sadegh Manesh continued: Although in the mentioned case, a cold weapon was drawn on the victim and his life was taken away, and although turning the victim’s head in the street caused insecurity in the environment, and merely drawing a weapon even without committing murder is a major part of the conditions of the crime of war. but the precise point is that the condition stipulated under Article 279, which looks at the motive of the perpetrator, did not exist in his behavior, because we all know that the murder committed by the late wife of Mona Heydari was only a matter of personal and family revenge and was intended to create insecurity It did not exist in the environment

The widespread nature of the crime is a condition for the realization of the charge of corruption in the world

A member of the Think Tank of Human Rights and Citizenship said: The behavior committed by the accused was definitely not corruption on earth, because according to Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code, the “extensiveness” of the behavior is one of the conditions for the realization of the crime. has committed murder, and by killing one person, this extent cannot be achieved.

Disruption of public peace and social consequences of murder are included in the sentence

Sadegh Menesh continued: Considering the removal of the title of Moharebeh and also the title of corruption in the land, the charge that remains against the accused is the charge of intentional murder and disturbing the public peace with unconventional movements in the form of turning the victim’s head in the streets. According to Article 381, the punishment for intentional murder is self-retribution, and in the event that the parents do not request retribution or declare his death, according to Article 612 of the Punishment Law approved in 1375, the legislator, considering the social consequences of the committed murder, conditionally imposes a punishment of three to ten He has prescribed a year of imprisonment for it.

He also said that according to Article 618 of the Penal Code, the punishment for disturbing public peace through unusual movements is imprisonment up to one year and whipping up to 74 strokes.

This legalization continued: According to the mentioned cases, after referring the matter to the second branch of the criminal court of Khuzestan province and after the necessary review and citing articles 127, 126, 100, 27, 23, 19, 18 and 265 of the penal code. Islamic Law approved 92 and articles 612, Islamic Penal Code approved 1375 and articles 2 and 12 of the Law on Reduction of Taziri Punishment approved 1391.

Abolition of the right to appeal has led to a reduction in prison sentences

A member of the think tank of human rights and citizenship said: In addition to the announcement of the death of the parents and the forgivability of the issue, retribution and ransom according to Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 1992 led to the issuance of a suspension of prosecution, in addition, according to Article 23 of the Penal Code Islamic Law approved 92 and Article 4 of the Law on Reduction of Imprisonment Punishment approved 99 regarding supplementary punishment, the first and second tier defendants were sentenced to two years of compulsory residence, respectively, and subsequently, considering that the defendants were deprived of their right to appeal, and the prosecutor also objected to the decree issued. and according to the obligation stipulated in Article 442 of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 1992, the prison sentence of each of them was reduced by a quarter and the case was closed.

The issued verdict is heavy and includes the maximum punishment

Sadegh Menesh stated that therefore the issued verdict is a heavy one and contains the maximum punishment within the framework of the law and the criticisms towards this verdict are not logical and have legal justification in any way and said: It is surprising that some people who appear to be lawyers, with a dual approach in In one place, they claim to be kind and compassionate and respect the rights of the accused, and in another place, they are not satisfied with anything less than the execution of people!

end of message/