ديه شكستگي استخوان بيني در فقه و قانون مجازات اسلامي مصوب 1392: تقابلي ميان رويكرد تنظير و تقدير

Diyya of Nasal Bone Fractures in Fiqh and the Islamic Penal Code (2013); A Contrast between the Approach of Making Equals (Tandheer) and Defined Measures (Taqdeer)

در نگاشته‌هاي فقهي، مسئله شكستگي بيني به شكلي ابهام‌آلود با فساد آن پيوند خورده است. همچنين در خصوص ميزان ديه آن نيز اختلاف‌نظر وجود دارد؛ برخي فقها معتقد به ثبوت ارش شده، اما مشهور بر اين باورند كه در فرض بهبود، يك‌دهم ديه كامل و در فرض عدم بهبود، ديه كامل پرداخت مي‌شود. نظريه اخير در ماده 593 قانون مجازات اسلامي مصوب 1392 به شكلي مبهم و مجمل انعكاس يافته است. صدور نظريه‌هاي مشورتي متعدد و رأي وحدت رويه شماره 761 هيئت عمومي ديوان عالي كشور در تاريخ 2/8/1396 مؤيد اين ابهام است. اين پژوهش نشان مي‌دهد كه در هم تنيدن فساد بيني و شكستگي آن از سوي فقها و قانون‌گذار، علت بسياري از اين چالش‌هاست كه منطقاً وجهي ندارد و ضرورت دارد كه اين دو مسئله به صورت مستقل مورد توجه قرار گيرند. در همين راستا، نگارندگان با تكيه بر مباني فقهي، جهت رفع ابهامات ديۀ شكستگي بيني به اين نظريه گرويده‌اند كه چنين آسيبي مي‌تواند مصداقي از هاشمه تلقي شود و در نتيجه بدون تفكيك فرض بهبود و عدم بهبود، يك‌دهم ديه كامل به آن تعلق گيرد.

In Islamic jurisprudential writings, the matter of the nasal fracture has associated with its defect in an ambiguous form. Also, there is disagreement about the amount of its diyya (Arabic: دية; blood money that has to be paid for homicide and bodily injury when there is no retaliation); some Islamic jurists believe the establishment (Arabic: ثبوت thubut) of arsh (Arabic: ارش; the compensation specified to be paid by the offender to the victim or his heirs) but the well-known jurists believe that in the case of healing (recovery) one tenth of full diyya is paid and in the occasion of nonunio‎n (nonhealing) full diyya is paid. The latter attitude has been expressed ambiguously and unclearly in Article 593 of Islamic penal code (enacted 1392). The issuance of the several advisory opinions and the Uniform judicial precedent no. 761 in Date 02/08/1396 is improved this ambiguity. This paper shows that the intertwinement of the nasal defect and its fracture by Islamic jurists and legislature is the cause of these multiple challenges and logically there is no reason for it. It is necessary to be considered these two issues independently. Accordingly, with relying on the jurisprudential bases for removing ambiguities from diyya of nasal bone fractures the authors have chosen this opinion that such damage is considered an instance of hāshimah (if the bone itself has been fractured without dislocating) and consequently without differentia between the case of healing (recovery) and non-healing (nonunio‎n), one tenth of the full diyya is paid.