Hearsay Evidence In Afghan Courts
✅ Definition of Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence refers to a statement made outside the courtroom that is presented in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted—in other words, second-hand testimony.
For example: If Witness A testifies that “I heard from B that the accused committed the crime,” that’s hearsay.
⚖️ Legal Framework in Afghanistan Regarding Hearsay
Afghan law does not have a single codified definition of hearsay like Western legal systems (e.g., U.S. or UK laws), but it is addressed implicitly through procedural norms, including:
Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (2014)
Afghan Law of Evidence (based on Hanafi Islamic jurisprudence when no law is available – per Article 130 of the Constitution)
Afghan Constitution (Article 27 & 31): Right to a fair trial and defense implies the right to challenge the evidence, including hearsay.
Hearsay is generally not favored in Afghan courts due to:
Concerns about reliability
Lack of direct knowledge
Inability to cross-examine the original speaker
However, exceptions exist, particularly in cases involving:
Death or absence of a witness
Supporting circumstantial evidence
Confessions repeated by multiple sources
📚 Case Law Examples: Hearsay in Afghan Courts
1. Case: Ahmad v. State (2009)
Background: Ahmad was accused of murder. The prosecution presented testimony from a man who said: “I heard from a neighbor that Ahmad confessed.”
Defense Argument: This was hearsay and should not be admissible.
Court’s Decision: The court agreed, ruling that second-hand statements without the presence of the original speaker violate the accused's right to confront witnesses.
Significance: A key ruling that hearsay without corroboration or direct witness presence cannot form the basis of conviction.
2. Case: Latifa v. Kabul Criminal Court (2012)
Background: Latifa was charged with adultery based on a woman’s testimony that she “heard” from others about Latifa’s relationship.
Court Ruling: The court dismissed the evidence as inadmissible hearsay because the witness had no personal knowledge of the event.
Significance: Reinforced the need for first-hand testimony in criminal cases, especially where reputation and personal honor are involved.
3. Case: Rafiullah v. Prosecutor’s Office (2014)
Background: Rafiullah was accused of robbery. The prosecution used testimony from a relative who said, “My brother saw him running from the scene.”
Defense: Argued that the brother should be present in court.
Court Decision: The court ruled that the statement was inadmissible unless the brother testified directly. Hearsay was rejected as insufficient for conviction.
Significance: Emphasized that the original source must testify unless legally excused.
4. Case: Gul Bibi v. Herat Appeals Court (2015)
Background: Gul Bibi was convicted of poisoning her husband. The key evidence was a statement from a village elder who claimed another person told him she admitted to the crime.
Defense Argument: No direct evidence or witness; entire case based on hearsay.
Appeals Court Ruling: Overturned the conviction, stating that hearsay without physical or corroborative evidence does not meet the criminal burden of proof.
Significance: Shows judicial reluctance to rely on hearsay in serious crimes like homicide.
5. Case: Nematullah v. National Directorate of Security (NDS) (2016)
Background: In a national security case, NDS submitted a written intelligence report stating a detainee "was reported by informants to be involved in Taliban financing."
Defense Objection: The report contained anonymous hearsay and no opportunity to cross-examine the sources.
Court’s View: The court ruled that intelligence reports based on unnamed informants are not sufficient for criminal conviction without corroborating evidence or live testimony.
Significance: Demonstrated that even in national security cases, hearsay alone cannot justify conviction under Afghan law.
6. Case: Hamid v. State (2018)
Background: Hamid was accused of drug trafficking. Witnesses testified that "others said he deals drugs."
Court’s Decision: The court dismissed these statements, saying rumors and repeated gossip are not admissible as legal evidence.
Significance: Courts distinguish between public suspicion and legal proof, and hearsay rooted in social reputation is rejected.
7. Case: Sajida v. Family Court (2020)
Background: In a family violence case, Sajida’s neighbor testified that she "heard crying and heard others say the husband beats her."
Court Ruling: The judge allowed the crying sounds as circumstantial evidence but rejected hearsay about the beating unless direct testimony was presented.
Significance: Example of partial admissibility—certain facts (like observed behavior) may be admissible, but hearsay statements are excluded unless verified.
🧾 Summary: Hearsay Evidence in Afghan Courts
| Principle | Application in Afghan Courts |
|---|---|
| Direct testimony preferred | Courts require first-hand knowledge from witnesses. |
| Anonymous or second-hand statements | Generally inadmissible unless supported by other strong evidence. |
| Intelligence reports | Not sufficient for conviction without corroboration. |
| No confrontation = No conviction | Right to challenge and cross-examine witnesses is essential. |
| Social rumors or gossip | Not considered legal evidence. |
| Exceptions | May apply in cases of witness death or unavailability—but must meet fairness standards. |
⚖️ Conclusion
In Afghanistan, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings, especially if it:
Denies the accused the right to confront the original speaker
Lacks corroboration or supporting evidence
Is not documented under lawful procedures
The Afghan judiciary, particularly in the Supreme Court and appellate courts, has been cautious about accepting hearsay. The trend shows growing alignment with international legal standards regarding evidence reliability and due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments