In accordance with the principle of the personal nature of criminal responsibility and punishment, it is the offender who must bear the sanction for the crime committed. However, there are instances in which the offender cannot be apprehended due to death or absconding. In such cases, the Islamic Penal Code, following Islamic jurisprudence, designates the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Māl) as liable for the payment of diyah under certain conditions. Article 435 expressly provides for the Treasury’s liability, stipulating that in cases of intentional homicide or injury where the offender is inaccessible, diyah shall be recovered, in order, from the offender’s property, the ‘āqilah, and ultimately from the Public Treasury. The question that arises is whether, in situations where the victim or the heirs of the victim waive qiṣāṣ and enter into a settlement with the offender for the payment of diyah, the subsequent inability to locate the offender may trigger the application of Article 435 and thereby shift liability to the Public Treasury. The present study—conducted through an analytical and applied method, drawing on authoritative library sources and judicial precedents—seeks to provide an answer to this fundamental inquiry. The purpose of this research is to safeguard the overarching interests of the Public Treasury, protect the rights of victims, enhance the accuracy of judicial decisions, and reduce delays in legal proceedings through greater statutory clarity regarding the scope of the law. This study demonstrates that, where the parties have reached a settlement regarding diyah, the resulting obligation constitutes a civil debt owed to the aggrieved party. Accordingly, the recovery of diyah from the offender is governed by the Civil Code and Enforcement of Financial Judgments Act, and such cases fall outside the ambit of Article 435 concerning the payment of diyah from the Public Treasury.