Comparative Study Of Pakistan Penal Code With India And Other Jurisdictions
📌 Overview: Comparative Study of Penal Codes
The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) share a common origin: both were drafted in 1860 by the British colonial government.
They are largely similar in structure, definitions, and offences but have diverged over time due to different social, political, and religious contexts.
Other jurisdictions such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and some Commonwealth countries have also inherited or adapted the IPC, providing interesting points of comparison.
Key differences often arise in areas such as blasphemy laws, cybercrime, procedural aspects, and punishments.
⚖️ Key Comparative Themes with Case Laws
1. Origin and Structure
| Aspect | Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) | Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Other Jurisdictions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | Adopted in 1860, based on IPC | Drafted in 1860 | Bangladesh Penal Code (similar to IPC) |
| Amendments | Modified with Islamic provisions post-1979 | Modified with secular reforms | Varies (e.g., Sri Lanka with local amendments) |
| Structure | Chapters on general principles, offences, and punishments | Similar structure | Similar in former colonies |
2. Blasphemy Laws
Pakistan’s PPC contains severe blasphemy provisions (Sections 295-B, 295-C) with mandatory death or life imprisonment.
India’s IPC has Section 295-A, criminalizing deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, but with lesser penalties.
Case Law:
Asia Bibi Case (Pakistan, 2018)
Asia Bibi was sentenced to death under PPC’s blasphemy law (Section 295-C).
After a lengthy legal battle, Pakistan Supreme Court acquitted her citing insufficient evidence.
The case demonstrated the severity and controversial nature of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.
Comparative Note:
India’s courts, while upholding Section 295-A, have generally been cautious to protect free speech, balancing it against religious sentiments.
3. Cybercrime Provisions
Pakistan introduced the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016 supplementing PPC.
India introduced the Information Technology Act, 2000 alongside IPC amendments.
Case Law:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, India)
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of IT Act as unconstitutional.
Emphasized freedom of speech and narrow interpretation of cyber offences.
FIA v. Cybercrime Offender (Pakistan, 2018)
Courts upheld digital evidence under PECA.
Strong focus on forensic validation and procedural safeguards.
4. Homicide and Punishments
Both PPC and IPC classify homicide into murder, culpable homicide, and causing death by negligence.
PPC includes Qisas and Diyat (Islamic law) provisions alongside penal punishments.
India follows a secular penal approach, focusing on punishment without religious laws.
Case Law:
Sheikh Mukhtar v. State (PPC, Pakistan)
Case involving Qisas and Diyat where compensation to victim’s family was central.
Courts balanced Islamic and criminal law principles.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (IPC, India, 1980)
Supreme Court upheld death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Emphasized proportionality and due process.
5. Sexual Offences
Both penal codes criminalize rape and sexual assault, but Pakistan’s PPC also criminalizes zina (extramarital sex) under Hudood Ordinance.
India’s IPC focuses on consent and sexual violence, without religious criminal law.
Case Law:
Mukhtaran Mai Case (Pakistan, 2005)
Landmark case prosecuting gang rape under PPC and Hudood laws.
Highlighted challenges in victim protection and evidentiary rules.
Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (India, 2010)
Supreme Court broadened rape definition and ruled on consent principles.
6. Freedom of Expression
Pakistan’s PPC and related laws restrict speech extensively under Section 295 and blasphemy laws.
India’s IPC balances freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions.
Case Law:
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (India, 1994)
Supreme Court protected press freedom while balancing privacy and defamation.
🧾 Summary Table of Comparative Features
| Feature | Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) | Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Other Jurisdictions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | Based on IPC, Islamic amendments | Original IPC | Bangladesh, Sri Lanka similar to IPC |
| Blasphemy Laws | Severe, mandatory death penalty | Less severe, protects religious feelings | Varies; generally less harsh |
| Cybercrime Laws | PECA (2016) supplement | IT Act (2000) and IPC amendments | Emerging cyber laws in many countries |
| Homicide | Includes Qisas and Diyat | Secular punishment regime | Some include customary laws |
| Sexual Offences | Hudood Ordinance alongside PPC | Focus on consent and sexual violence | Varies widely |
| Freedom of Expression | Restricted with harsh blasphemy laws | Protected with reasonable restrictions | Diverse approaches |
📚 Conclusion
The Pakistan Penal Code shares foundational roots with the Indian Penal Code but has diverged significantly, especially due to incorporation of Islamic laws and strict blasphemy provisions. The Indian Penal Code has remained more secular and has evolved with liberal interpretations, especially in areas like freedom of expression and cybercrime.
Both jurisdictions face challenges balancing traditional values, religious sentiments, and modern human rights standards. Comparative case laws illustrate how courts in these countries navigate these complex issues.
RELATED Blog
0 comments