Nasai

(1) The author rahimahullah has taken the meaning of "ghulam" here as "slave" (mamluk), whereas some scholars have interpreted "ghulam" here to mean "child." In Arabic, the word "ghulam" is used for both meanings. It is evident that retribution (qisas) is not applicable to a child. However, if "slave" is indeed intended, then this would be a case of unintentional killing (khata’), meaning that the element of intentionality is removed, and even in the case of unintentional killing, qisas is not applicable. In both scenarios, blood money (diyah) was due upon his heirs, but they themselves were destitute. What could have been recovered from them? Therefore, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam effected reconciliation.

(2) The editor of the book has declared the chain of this narration to be weak, whereas other scholars have considered this narration to be authentic in its chain, and based on the evidences, their opinion is correct. For details, see: (Dhakheerat al-‘Uqba Sharh Sunan al-Nasa’i by al-Atbubi: 36/54-57)

Benefits and Issues:
➊ According to some researchers, this narration is authentic.

➋ In this hadith, the word "slave" (ghulam) has one interpretation in its well-known meaning, that he was an owned slave (abd mamluk). Since this matter was between slaves and the owner of the one at fault was poor, nothing was imposed upon them. The second interpretation is that "ghulam" refers to a young boy, meaning he was free, but due to his childhood, his mistake, and the guardian of the one at fault being poor, nothing was imposed upon them.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبوداود، الديات، باب جناية العبد يكون للفقراء، حديث:4590، والنسائي، القسامة، حديث:4755، وأحمد:4 /438، والترمذي: لم أجده.»©

Explanation:
➊ The aforementioned narration has been declared weak in its chain by our esteemed researcher, whereas other scholars have deemed it authentic, and in light of the evidences, their opinion appears to be correct.
For further details, see: (Al-Mawsu‘ah al-Hadithiyyah, Musnad al-Imam Ahmad: 33/157, 158; Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud by al-Albani, no. 4590)

➋ There is a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of this hadith.
Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah has established the chapter heading: “The Dropping of Qisas (retaliation) among Slaves in Cases Other Than Murder,” meaning that among slaves, there is no qisas for any crime except murder. Thus, Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah has understood the word “slave” in the hadith to refer to both slave and owned servant (mamluk). However, Allamah Khattabi rahimahullah, taking the meaning of “slave” as “boy,” has said: Its meaning is that the perpetrator of the crime was a free boy and that this crime occurred from him by mistake (khata’), and his heirs were poor people.
And the principle is that the heirs should pay the blood money (diyah) according to their capacity and means.
If they are poor and destitute, then nothing is required from them.
As for the slave boy, if he commits a crime, then he himself will be responsible for it.
This is the opinion of most scholars.
(Summarized) In Muntaqa al-Akhbar, Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah says: The meaning of the aforementioned hadith is that the responsibility of paying the blood money (diyah) that is imposed upon the heirs of the killer will be dropped due to their poverty, and the killer will also be absolved from it.
(Muntaqa al-Akhbar)