Introduction: In Imami jurisprudence and the Islamic Penal Code, the recovery of some injuries has been considered to reduce a part of their atonement. However, it is not clear how long the realization of recovery can have such an effect on the amount of atonement. Lack of determination of specific time for this, the passage of one year from the crime, and passage of usual time are the three paradigms that can be considered in this regard. However, it seems that all the above three paradigms have some drawbacks that make it necessary to present a solid and based view of the principles of Imami jurisprudence and the judicial system of the country. In this study, the main texts of Imami jurisprudence were investigated by descriptive and analytical approach.
Conclusion: In determining the permissible time range for recovery instead of emphasizing and focusing on the need to determine a specific period for recovery, it should be decided by focusing on the expert opinion on the realization or non-realization of recovery and also the time of its realization. This view, in addition to being more efficient and effective in the current Iranian judicial system, is more stable according to some jurisprudential propositions. Accordingly, in this study, by separating the three modes of "non-diagnosis of recovery", "diagnosis of non-recovery" and "diagnosis of recovery", the special sentence of each of these cases is expressed independently and in detail by focusing on the Legal Medicine Organization.