Does ‘blood money’ have a legal standing? | Explained

The implications of 'blood money' in Islamic law, its contemporary applications, and its parallels in global legal history.

The story so far: The death sentence awarded by a Yemen court to nurse Nimisha Priya from Kerala for murdering her business partner, and the subsequent debates and efforts surrounding her acquittal and repatriation, which involves monetary compensation paid to the victim’s family, have brought the focus back on ‘blood money’ and its implications.

‘Blood money’, or ‘diya’, finds footing in the Islamic Sharia law, and is followed in countries that incorporate these laws in their legislation. Under the rule of ‘diya’, a select quantity of a valuable asset, primarily monetary, has to be paid by the perpetrator of the crime to the victim, or the victim’s family if the latter has died. The custom is practised predominantly in cases involving unintentional murder and culpable homicide. It is also invoked in murder cases wherein the victim’s kin chooses not to retaliate through ‘qisas’ (a way of retribution under the Sharia). The end-goal, as the law says, is not to put a price tag on human life, but to alleviate the plight and suffering of the affected family and their potential loss of income. However, it is to be noted that even if the concerned parties reconcile through ‘blood money’, the community and the state will retain the right to impose a deterrent punishment, including penalties.

In its contemporary applications, ‘blood money’ is upheld in several Islamic countries with factors such as gender, religion and nationality of the victim coming into play. Islamic scholar-researcher Mohammad Hashim Kamali outlines several cases in his book Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: A Fresh Interpretation. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the traffic regulations specifically mandate payment of ‘blood money’ to heirs of the victims who die in road accidents. In addition, the perpetrator shall be liable to a prison term. The statutory legislation and the Sharia work hand in hand in such cases. While the police determine the guilty parties, a Sharia court fixes the amount of ‘blood money’ to be paid. As for accidents in workplaces, the rates are fixed by a special committee. In 2022, talks had surfaced that Saudi Arabia was on the course to amend its ‘blood money’ laws, proposing equal monetary payments for men, women, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. However, efforts towards this are yet to come to fruition.

In Iran too, a country where the practice is rigorously upheld, ‘blood money’ varies with respect to religion and gender. A woman’s compensation is fixed at half of that of a man’s. In 2019, the country’s Supreme Court upheld a law that sought equalisation of ‘blood money’. However, the country is yet to see its full-fledged implementation. India’s neighbour Pakistan, too, provides a place for ‘diya’ and ‘qisas’. Through the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, these provisions were brought into mainstream law. In Yemen, the country in question, the consensus for compensation can be arrived at by the parties, and there might be a judicial oversight over the fairness of the compensation.

Provisions for the grant or receiving of ‘blood money’ do not find a place in India’s formal legal system. However, the system does provide a way for the accused to negotiate with the prosecution through ‘plea bargaining’.

Though the concept cannot be directly equated with ‘blood money’, the scheme lays out a procedure whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty for a particular offence in return for a concession from the prosecutor. The concessions can be offered on a charge or a sentence. In the former, the defendant may plead guilty for one of the several charges or a less severe charge in return for dismissal of other charges, and in the latter, for a reduced sentence than what is prescribed for the concerned offence.

Introduced into legal parlance through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which added Chapter XXI A to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, plea bargaining comes with an array of limitations unlike ‘blood money’, which has a broader purview. For instance, plea bargaining can be taken up only for offences that are penalised with imprisonment of less than seven years. It cannot be invoked if the accused has been previously convicted for a similar offence. Besides, the provision is not available for crimes against women or children aged below 14; heinous crimes such as murder or rape; and offences involving socio-economic conditions, including civil rights. Moreover, the accused has to voluntarily come forward to plead guilty, and must not be coerced.