چکیده:
The quality of the general nature of the law، and sometimes ambiguity، obscurity، inconsistency، or silence of the law require the necessity of interpretation. The Islamic Penal Code and the criminal procedural code are affected by the previous problems. The present article proceeds a desk study and theoretical study of the articles of these laws. In case of doubt in the intention of the legislator، first we must try to be aware of his real intention. However if we are desperate in our attempt، we should construe the case in favor of the defendant. In establishing the commission of a crime if the arguments for accusation are not sufficient or there is no evidence against the defendant towards his conviction، the principle of innocence is to be followed. Basically doubts in these cases are equal to failure to establish the crime and are definitely in favor of the defendant.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In fact, the impact of this doubt is in cases where no evidence against the accused is available or the evidence of the crime is not sufficient such that the accused cannot be convicted based on it, whereby based on Clause A of Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Law1, one must inevitably rule for his acquittal.
2. The position of interpreting doubt in favor of the accused in criminal law It was previously mentioned that in cases of doubt regarding the proof of a crime and the accusatory evidence, whenever the evidence of the crime is insufficient or no evidence against the accused is available to convict them, based on the rule of 'dar' (prevention), the presumption of innocence, the principle of legality of crime and punishment, and the ugliness of punishment without clarification, a verdict of innocence must be issued for the accused.
161) Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that: "In the following cases, while observing the restrictions of Article (33) of this law and its notes, whenever existing circumstances and indications indicate the presence of suspicion against the accused, the issuance of a temporary detention order is mandatory and shall continue until the issuance of the primary verdict, provided that its duration does not exceed the minimum legal punishment prescribed for the committed crime.
(
, 
, 
)
