Comparison Of Afghan Criminal Law With Pakistani Penal Code
🔍 General Comparison: Afghan Criminal Law vs. Pakistani Penal Code
| Feature | Afghan Criminal Law (2017 Penal Code) | Pakistani Penal Code (1860, amended) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Foundation | Civil law system with Islamic influence | Common law with strong Islamic jurisprudence |
| Sources of Law | Constitution, Penal Code, Islamic Law (Sharia) | Constitution, PPC, Hudood Ordinances, Sharia |
| Focus | Codified, modern, reform-oriented | Colonial legacy with mix of modern + Islamic laws |
| Islamic Law Integration | Selective (e.g. Hudud, Qisas in separate laws) | Deeply integrated via Hudood & Qisas laws |
| Punishment System | Imprisonment, fines, limited corporal punishments | Includes corporal punishments (e.g., lashes, amputation in Hudood cases) |
| Women’s Protection | Improved rights under 2017 Penal Code | Still mixed — Hudood laws create controversy |
| Juvenile Justice | Separate Juvenile Code & reform focus | Juvenile Justice System Act (2018) exists, not always followed |
🧾 Case-by-Case Comparison
Case 1: Murder and Qisas Provisions
Afghanistan:
Case: A man was tried for intentional murder.
Law Applied: Afghan Penal Code + Law on Qisas and Diyat.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced under Qisas (retributive justice) after victim’s family rejected diya (blood money).
Significance: Shows limited but recognized role of Islamic Qisas.
Pakistan:
Case: Ghulam Mustafa v. State — Intentional murder case.
Law Applied: Section 302 PPC (Qatl-e-Amd) + Qisas & Diyat Ordinance.
Outcome: Court applied Qisas after family rejected compromise.
Significance: Qisas fully integrated into PPC, commonly applied.
Key Difference: In Pakistan, Qisas law is regularly applied in murder cases. In Afghanistan, it's available but used more selectively.
Case 2: Theft Punishment
Afghanistan:
Case: Man convicted of repeated burglaries.
Law Applied: Afghan Penal Code (Art. 718–727).
Outcome: Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, no corporal punishment.
Significance: Focus on imprisonment rather than physical punishment.
Pakistan:
Case: Theft under Hudood (State v. Khuda Bakhsh).
Law Applied: Hudood Ordinance (cutting off hand under certain conditions).
Outcome: Sentence reduced as procedural flaws found.
Significance: Islamic punishment (amputation) prescribed, though rarely executed due to strict evidence rules.
Key Difference: Pakistan provides for Hadd punishment for theft; Afghanistan avoids corporal punishment under general law.
Case 3: Adultery and Zina
Afghanistan:
Case: Couple accused of extramarital relations.
Law Applied: Penal Code + Sharia-based personal status laws.
Outcome: Imprisonment (2 years) based on circumstantial evidence; no corporal punishment.
Significance: More cautious and evidence-based approach.
Pakistan:
Case: Safia Bibi Case — blind woman accused of zina.
Law Applied: Zina Ordinance.
Outcome: Convicted based on pregnancy; later acquitted after outcry.
Significance: Shows challenges with evidentiary standards in Hudood laws.
Key Difference: Afghan courts use imprisonment; Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinance prescribes stoning (rarely implemented) if four eyewitnesses testify.
Case 4: Juvenile Sentencing
Afghanistan:
Case: 16-year-old convicted of robbery.
Law Applied: Juvenile Code of Afghanistan.
Outcome: Sent to juvenile rehabilitation center, not prison.
Significance: Emphasis on rehabilitation and education.
Pakistan:
Case: Mst. Shazia Bibi v. State — minor convicted.
Law Applied: Juvenile Justice System Act (JJSA), 2018.
Outcome: Minor’s rights violated due to poor legal representation.
Significance: Law exists, but implementation is uneven.
Key Difference: Both countries provide juvenile protections, but Afghanistan’s implementation is currently more focused on rehabilitation.
Case 5: Bribery of Public Officials
Afghanistan:
Case: Police officer accepted bribes at a checkpoint.
Law Applied: Afghan Penal Code (Articles 482–488).
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 4 years and fined.
Significance: Strong anti-corruption laws post-2017 reform.
Pakistan:
Case: National Accountability Bureau v. Raja Pervez Ashraf.
Law Applied: National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), PPC Sec. 161–165.
Outcome: Prolonged trial; political influence alleged.
Significance: NAB used for anti-corruption, but seen as politicized.
Key Difference: Afghanistan’s newer laws offer more neutral enforcement (in theory); Pakistan’s enforcement seen as selective.
📌 Summary Table
| Legal Issue | Afghan Law | Pakistani Law | Key Contrast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Murder (Qisas) | Limited Qisas in law | Qisas fully integrated | Pakistan applies Qisas more often |
| Theft | Imprisonment focus | Hadd punishments in theory | Afghan law avoids corporal punishment |
| Zina (Adultery) | Moderate sentencing, no stoning | Stoning prescribed under Hudood | Afghan courts rely more on circumstantial evidence |
| Juvenile Crime | Emphasis on rehabilitation | JJSA exists, weaker enforcement | Afghan courts more likely to implement alternatives |
| Bribery | Penal Code-based, stricter post-2017 | NAB + PPC, politicized | Afghan law newer, but enforcement varies |
🧠 Reflection Questions
Why might Afghanistan avoid corporal punishments that are still legally possible in Pakistan?
How does political context influence criminal law enforcement in both countries?
In which types of cases is customary or religious law most influential?
RELATED Blog
0 comments