Validity of Forensic Medicine Survey in Proof of Crime in Shiite Jurisprudence

Todays, scientific and technological advancements have affected all fields including the means and tools of discovering and proving crimes. Therefore, in this era, which is named the era of "scientific evidences", even the traditional well-accepted proofs such as witnessing and confession are in some cases evaluated by modern scientific proofs. The so-called scientific evidences include a wide variety of scientific and technical actions, experimentations and explorations that is in charge of the most of case studies in criminalities of forensic medicine.On the other hand, regarding criminal's use of scientific and technical methods in committing crimes and the inefficiency of using mere traditional proofs to counter them, we should authorize juridical systems to equip themselves with various types of scientific methods to counter crime, among them making use of scientific proving methods. Thus, we should investigate the validity of these evidences, especially Proofs from rigorous experiments of forensic medicine, from Shiite Jurisprudence and criminal law's point of view, particularly modern proving documents. In this study, the validity of these documents is dealt with by explaining the concept and the boundaries of judge's knowledge. We concluded that in the case that proofs from forensic medicine survey provide a common knowledge and a conventional certainty for the judge, due to the validity of judge's knowledge in Hagh-Allah (right of God) and Hagh-al-Nas (right of people), we can consider them valid in Shiite jurisprudence, and as a result, in criminal law.In addition, due to the exclusive policies of Islam in dealing with the crimes involving Hagh-Allah and the crimes that involve Hagh-al-Nas, especially the applicability of crime-covering principles in issues in which the pure rights of God is considered, the validity of these evidences in this type of crimes is facing with restriction, and these evidences can be used only for innocence and not for prove.