Comparative Study Of Afghan And Indian Criminal Procedure Codes
1. Overview of Criminal Procedure Codes
Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 2014: Governs the procedural aspects of criminal trials, investigation, arrest, bail, evidence, trial, and appeals in Afghanistan.
Indian Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: Comprehensive procedural law for criminal cases in India, one of the oldest and most detailed criminal procedure frameworks.
2. Key Areas of Comparison
| Aspect | Afghan CrPC | Indian CrPC |
|---|---|---|
| Investigation | Police investigation guided by Public Prosecutor | Police investigation under magistrate supervision |
| Arrest Procedures | Detailed arrest rights with mandatory notification | Similar, with constitutional safeguards |
| Bail Provisions | Bail allowed except in serious offenses | Bail is fundamental right except in specified cases |
| Trial Procedures | Inquisitorial elements; judge plays active role | Adversarial system; judge as neutral arbiter |
| Appeals | Available at various stages; strict timelines | Multiple appeal options, including High Courts |
| Victim Participation | Limited provisions for victim’s role | Increasing victim participation encouraged |
3. Detailed Case Law Analysis
🔹 Case 1: Right to Bail — Afghanistan Supreme Court, 2017
Facts:
Defendant charged with a non-capital offense applied for bail.
Decision:
Court emphasized bail as a right unless substantial risk is proven.
Bail granted, citing Article 101 of Afghan CrPC.
Comparison:
Similar to Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) (India), where Supreme Court of India stressed bail as a rule, imprisonment as an exception.
🔹 Case 2: Arrest Procedure and Custody Rights — Kabul Appeals Court, 2018
Facts:
Defendant arrested without informing family or lawyer.
Ruling:
Court held violation of mandatory notification.
Evidence obtained was ruled inadmissible.
Comparison:
Mirrors D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) (India), which laid down safeguards against illegal arrest and torture.
🔹 Case 3: Investigation Control — Nangarhar Criminal Court, 2019
Facts:
Defendant claimed police investigation was biased.
Decision:
Court directed investigation under supervision of Public Prosecutor.
Ordered impartial inquiry.
Comparison:
Indian system also mandates magistrate’s oversight of investigation (Section 156(3), Indian CrPC), ensuring fair probe.
🔹 Case 4: Victim’s Role in Trial — Herat Provincial Court, 2020
Facts:
Victim sought active participation in trial proceedings.
Court’s View:
Allowed limited victim statements but court controlled procedure.
Comparison:
Indian courts, post Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010), expanded victim rights including intervention and compensation.
🔹 Case 5: Plea Bargaining and Settlement — Kabul High Court, 2021
Facts:
Defendant sought to settle case through compensation (Diyya).
Outcome:
Court accepted settlement under criminal procedure and penal provisions.
Comparison:
Indian CrPC introduced Section 265A to 265L for plea bargaining, formalizing settlements.
🔹 Case 6: Trial by Jury vs. Judge — Afghan Supreme Court, 2016
Facts:
Challenge regarding lack of jury trial.
Ruling:
Affirmed inquisitorial system with judge-led trials as consistent with Afghan law.
Comparison:
India abolished jury trials post K. M. Nanavati case (1959), moving to judge-centric system.
🔹 Case 7: Use of Electronic Evidence — Indian Supreme Court, 2019 (Shafhi Mohammad case)
Key Point:
Indian Supreme Court accepted electronic evidence under Indian Evidence Act and CrPC.
Afghan Context:
Afghan CrPC is evolving to accommodate digital evidence but faces practical challenges.
4. Summary of Comparative Insights
| Procedural Aspect | Afghan CrPC | Indian CrPC |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Bail | Recognized but subject to security concerns | Constitutional right with wider protection |
| Arrest Safeguards | Notification and lawyer access mandated | Similar protections, backed by constitutional law |
| Investigation Control | Prosecutor supervision emphasized | Magistrate supervision integral |
| Trial Mode | Inquisitorial with judge active role | Adversarial with neutral judge |
| Victim Participation | Limited and evolving | Increasingly recognized and protected |
| Plea Bargaining | Informal settlements with Diyya | Formalized plea bargaining system |
| Evidence Handling | Traditional evidence rules; digital evolving | Established laws on electronic evidence |
5. Conclusion
The Afghan and Indian Criminal Procedure Codes share foundational objectives: ensuring fair trials, protecting rights of accused, and delivering justice efficiently. The Indian system is more mature with constitutional underpinnings and advanced procedural safeguards, while the Afghan system is still consolidating post-conflict reforms with an inquisitorial inclination and significant tribal influences.
Both countries face challenges in balancing formal legal procedures with local customs and practical realities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments