Validation of legal and judicial presumption in criminal proceedings

Proving a criminal case has always faced difficulties and one of the methods to prove a crime is to use the presumptions. Legal presumption and judicial presumption are two types of presumptions in Iranian law. The presumptions has rule of life in criminal law and is limited to those cases that the legislature has recognized as valid. Important examples of legal presumptions in Iranian criminal law are the presumption of criminality in the money laundering law, the presumption of membership in anti-security groups of the country and the statistics of aggravation of punishment. There are also other legal presumption that are addressed in the present study. In order to establish the truth of a case in a case, the judge is required to follow the law provided by the legislature. But the credibility of the judicial presumption depends on the opinion of the judge. The implication of this type of presumption is stronger than the implication of legal presumption and the peace of conscience of the judge is more tangible in judicial presumption. The cases of the Judicial presumption can not be counted and confined in any way, but the most important examples are expertise, research and examination of the place, fingerprinting, etc. The judicial presumption should only be cited in proving the rights of the people; Because in the right of God, the principle is to cover. In the present study, descriptive-analytical method and using numerous articles and books to identify the examples of the presumption and also one of the challenges of using the presumption, namely different forms of conflict. In line with the above-mentioned challenge, new and practical solutions for resolving conflicts have been presented, the effect of which is to provide the means for issuing a fair verdict and discovering the clear and obvious truth.