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.
đź“Ś 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 |
RELATED Blog
comments