 |
|
The case of Nimisha Priya, a Kerala nurse sentenced to death in Yemen for the murder of a man she claims was harassing her, has brought the concept of 'blood money' into sharp focus. Facing imminent execution, Priya's last hope lies in her lawyers persuading the victim's family to accept financial compensation, a practice rooted in Sharia law. The Indian government has acknowledged the limitations of its intervention, stating that 'blood money' is likely the only remaining avenue for Priya's salvation. 'Blood money,' also known as 'diyah,' is a form of restitution paid to the family of a murder victim in exchange for a pardon. This practice is sanctioned under Sharia law, which is followed in Yemen and other Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, albeit to varying degrees. The legal heirs of the murdered person possess the right to demand or accept this compensation, and if accepted, the offender typically avoids execution and may also receive a government pardon. The origins of 'blood money' trace back to pre-Islamic times, specifically to the sixth and seventh centuries CE, where it served as a mechanism for warring tribes to prevent cycles of violence and bloodshed. Initially, the compensation involved various forms of wealth, including gold, silver, and trade goods like camels and furs. The concept was later formalized within the Quran, specifically in chapter 4, verse 92, which stipulates that if a believer is killed by mistake, the perpetrator must free a believing slave and pay 'blood money' (diyah, originally set at 100 camels by Prophet Mohammed) to the deceased's family. The verse also provides an alternative for those unable to afford such compensation: fasting for two consecutive months. However, fasting is not a viable option in Priya's case. Throughout history, numerous instances have showcased the application of 'blood money' in cases involving Indians facing death sentences in foreign countries. In 2017, a Saudi businessman-philanthropist intervened to free a Telangana man on death row by paying approximately Rs 1.8 crore in 'blood money.' Similar cases have occurred in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and elsewhere, although compensation has not always been accepted, leading to prolonged incarceration or even execution. Conversely, there have been cases where Indians have received compensation from local residents, such as the April 2023 incident where Mohd Mirza, severely injured in a bus accident that claimed 17 lives, received Rs 11 crore in compensation. The case of Nimisha Priya marks the first instance where 'blood money' is being offered in a case within Yemen. This adds complexity to the situation, given the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in the country.
Several cases highlight the role of 'blood money' in securing the release of Indians from foreign prisons. In 2017, AS Sankaranarayanan, a Kerala man, was freed after spending eight years in a UAE prison for the accidental death of a Bangladeshi electrician at his home. He was initially directed to pay 200,000 dirhams (approximately Rs 47 lakh), an amount he could not afford. Public awareness generated by a newspaper report led to significant assistance, culminating in the Emirates Islamic Bank paying the full amount. In the same year, Limbadri, a Telangana man, returned home after nearly a decade on death row for the accidental murder of a Saudi national. His case was championed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, who facilitated the payment of 'diyah' by a local businessman. In 2014, three Indians on death row in Saudi Arabia for six years for the murder of their compatriot were released after a businessman paid around Rs 1.12 crore to the victim's family. Another notable case from 2013 involved the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia paying 'blood money' – approximately Rs 1.5 crore – for Saleem Basha, an Indian truck driver from Bengaluru, who had been convicted of killing nine people in a road accident in 2006. These examples demonstrate the potential of 'blood money' to secure the release of individuals facing severe penalties in foreign legal systems. However, it's important to note that the process is not always straightforward, and the willingness of the victim's family to accept compensation is a critical factor.
The case of Abdul Rahim, also from Kerala, accused of accidentally killing the minor son of his employer in Riyadh in 2006, provides a more recent example of the complexities involved in securing release through 'blood money.' After a massive fundraising effort by the Malayali community, a 'diyah' of Rs 34 crore was secured, allowing Rahim to escape the death sentence. He was, however, handed a 20-year jail term, including time already served, which means his sentence ends in December 2026. This case illustrates that even when 'blood money' is successfully raised and accepted, it does not always guarantee immediate freedom. The length of the sentence and other legal factors can still impact the outcome. The Nimisha Priya case is especially challenging due to the complexities of the legal system in Yemen and the ongoing conflict in the country. The willingness of the victim's family to accept 'blood money' remains the key determinant of her fate. While past cases offer a glimmer of hope, each situation is unique, and there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. The intervention of influential individuals, community support, and diplomatic efforts are all crucial in navigating these complex legal and cultural landscapes. The ultimate decision rests with the victim's family, and their willingness to forgive in exchange for financial compensation will determine whether Nimisha Priya can escape the death sentence and return to India.
Source: Can 'Blood Money' Save Kerala Nurse Nimisha Priya? Has It Saved Indians Before?