The integration of Artificial Intelligence Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) into medicine has profoundly challenged classical doctrines of criminal liability. Within this multi-agent ecosystem, attributing adverse patient outcomes—such as injury or death—cannot be construed as a linear interaction confined strictly to the attending physician; rather, it demands a normative re-evaluation of fault across a tripartite framework comprising the physician, the software developer, and the healthcare facility. Utilizing an analytical-comparative methodology, this study examines Iranian criminal law in light of emerging international regulatory frameworks. The findings demonstrate that despite employing AI, the clinician remains bound by a "duty of means" and meaningful human oversight; succumbing to automation bias or unjustified dismissal of algorithmic recommendations incurs liability under Article 495 of the Islamic Penal Code. Nevertheless, the opaque "black box" nature of deep-learning algorithms and training data biases weaken the traditional Learned Intermediary Doctrine, rendering developers criminally liable as corporate entities (Article 143 IPC) for latent design defects or failures in post-market surveillance. Furthermore, healthcare facilities face direct corporate negligence for procuring clinically unvalidated systems or failing to adequately train medical personnel. Ultimately, by applying the doctrine of concurrent causation under Article 526 IPC alongside comparative mechanisms such as the presumption of causality, an attribution matrix based on the causal degree of each party's conduct is proposed to prevent the physician from serving as the sole scapegoat.