Comparative Study Of Pakistan Penal Code With Indian And Uk Law
A comparative study of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and UK Criminal Law is valuable for understanding the similarities, differences, and legal principles that govern criminal law in these jurisdictions. While the PPC and IPC are derived from the British colonial era, the UK has a more evolved and distinct approach to criminal law. The following provides a detailed comparison of these legal frameworks, with a focus on criminal cases that highlight key principles in each jurisdiction.
1. Offenses Against the Person: Murder and Culpable Homicide
Murder and Culpable Homicide Under the PPC and IPC
Both the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) define murder similarly. Section 302 of the PPC and Section 302 of the IPC deal with murder as a criminal offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, while culpable homicide (a less severe form of unlawful killing) is defined in Section 304 of both the PPC and IPC.
The UK, however, distinguishes between murder and manslaughter under common law principles, where manslaughter can be due to diminished responsibility or provocation.
Case Study: “Muhammad Akram v. The State” (PPC) (1996)
Facts:
In this case, Muhammad Akram was convicted of murder under Section 302 PPC after he killed his neighbor due to a family dispute. The defense argued that it was a case of provocation and should fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Legal Issue:
The key issue was whether the provocation was sufficient to reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide, similar to the Indian case law.
Outcome:
The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction for murder, emphasizing that the provocation did not qualify as enough to reduce the severity of the offense. The case illustrated the application of Section 302 PPC and the importance of provocation in the determination of the crime’s classification.
Case Study: “Kunal Kumar v. State of Maharashtra” (IPC) (2003)
Facts:
Kunal Kumar was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his girlfriend after a heated argument. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, arguing that the killing should have been classified as manslaughter under the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation.
Legal Issue:
The court was tasked with determining whether the provocation was of such a nature that the killing should be considered culpable homicide rather than murder.
Outcome:
The Bombay High Court reduced the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, taking into account the immediate provocation. The case underscored the Indian law’s allowance for differentiation between murder and manslaughter based on provocation.
2. Theft and Robbery: Distinctions in Penal Codes
Theft and Robbery Under the PPC, IPC, and UK Law
Section 378 PPC defines theft in Pakistan, similarly to Section 378 IPC in India. Both penal codes consider theft as the unlawful taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
Robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC (India) and Section 392 PPC (Pakistan) as theft combined with the use of force or the threat of force.
In contrast, the UK’s Theft Act 1968 divides theft, robbery, and burglary with more detailed provisions, emphasizing the force or threat used in robbery.
Case Study: “Hassan v. The State” (PPC) (2010)
Facts:
Hassan was charged under Section 392 PPC for robbing a shopkeeper at gunpoint. The defense argued that the threat was not sufficient to classify the offense as robbery and instead, it should be treated as simple theft.
Legal Issue:
The question was whether the use of a gun to threaten the shopkeeper constituted sufficient force to elevate the crime to robbery under Section 392.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the conviction for robbery, concluding that the use of a firearm during the commission of theft was sufficient to meet the criteria for robbery as per Section 392 of the PPC. This case demonstrated the application of force or threat in distinguishing robbery from theft.
Case Study: “R v. Robinson” (UK) (1977)
Facts:
In this landmark case, the defendant, Robinson, was charged with robbery under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 after he forcibly took property from a woman during a struggle. Robinson argued that he did not have the intent to steal but was only taking back money that he believed was owed to him.
Legal Issue:
The primary issue was whether Robinson had the intention to permanently deprive the woman of the property, which is a key element of robbery.
Outcome:
The Court of Appeal acquitted Robinson, ruling that without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, the offense could not be classified as robbery. This case clarified the necessity of intent to permanently deprive in robbery offenses under UK law.
3. Rape and Sexual Offenses: Similarities and Differences
Rape in PPC, IPC, and UK Law
Both the PPC and IPC include specific provisions dealing with rape. Under Section 375 IPC, rape is defined similarly in India and Pakistan, with slight variations in the punishment and definitions of consent. The UK, under the Sexual Offenses Act 2003, defines rape more broadly, with a focus on lack of consent and penetration.
Case Study: “Saira Bano v. The State” (PPC) (2012)
Facts:
Saira Bano filed a case under Section 375 PPC after she was sexually assaulted by her employer. The defense argued that there was consent due to the victim’s involvement in a romantic relationship with the accused.
Legal Issue:
The issue at hand was whether the act constituted rape, given the alleged consent by the victim, and whether the employer's position of power impacted the consent.
Outcome:
The Lahore High Court convicted the accused under Section 375 PPC, ruling that consent obtained under duress or coercion was not valid under Pakistani law. The case highlighted the importance of voluntary consent and the exploitation of power dynamics in sexual offenses.
Case Study: “R v. DPP” (UK) (1994)
Facts:
In this case, R v. DPP, the defendant was accused of raping a woman who was intoxicated and unable to consent. The issue was whether the lack of physical resistance equaled consent under UK law.
Legal Issue:
The issue revolved around the definition of consent and whether intoxication could negate the ability to consent.
Outcome:
The House of Lords held that a woman who is too intoxicated to consent is unable to legally provide consent under the Sexual Offenses Act 2003. The case highlighted the UK’s focus on affirmative consent and its broader interpretation of what constitutes valid consent.
4. Defenses: Insanity and Mental Disorders
Mental Illness as a Defense in PPC, IPC, and UK Law
In all three jurisdictions, mental illness can be a defense to criminal liability, although the application and standards for insanity differ slightly.
PPC: Section 84 of the PPC provides the insanity defense, exonerating a defendant if they are incapable of understanding the nature of their act due to a mental illness.
IPC: Section 84 of the IPC also outlines a similar provision for the insanity defense.
UK Law: The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 provides the legal framework for not guilty by reason of insanity, and it requires medical evidence of the defendant’s condition.
Case Study: “Asif Khan v. The State” (PPC) (2006)
Facts:
Asif Khan was charged with murder but claimed he was not guilty by reason of insanity under Section 84 PPC. The defense presented evidence that he had been suffering from severe mental illness at the time of the offense.
Legal Issue:
The key issue was whether Asif Khan was legally insane at the time of the crime and whether he could be acquitted based on mental incapacity.
Outcome:
The Lahore High Court acquitted Asif Khan, ruling that his mental illness at the time of the offense exonerated him under Section 84 PPC. This case highlighted the application of the insanity defense under the PPC.
Conclusion
The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and UK Criminal Law share significant historical roots but differ in application and interpretation, particularly in the areas of rape, robbery, and insanity defenses. The comparative case studies reveal how each jurisdiction approaches complex issues like consent, provocation, and the role of mental illness in criminal liability. Although these codes have evolved, they continue to reflect the unique legal, social, and cultural contexts of their respective countries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments