Mendeley  

Zotero  

Rezaee A A. The Priority of Judicial Knowledge over Confession in Criminal Proof from the Perspective of Comparative Jurisprudence With a Focus on Afghan Law. SRQJL 2025; 3 (8) :63-75
URL: http://srqjl.knu.edu.af/article-1-103-en.html

In both jurisprudential and legal systems, proving a crime requires valid and definitive evidence such as the defendant’s confession and the judge’s knowledge. At times, these two types of evidence may conflict, raising the fundamental question: in case of contradiction, which one takes precedence? This study, using an analytical-comparative approach, examines the precedence of judicial knowledge over confession from the perspectives of Imami jurisprudence, Sunni jurisprudence, and the legal system of Afghanistan.
Findings indicate that in Imami jurisprudence, judicial knowledge- if based on credible sources and leading to certainty-takes precedence over confession, even if the defendant explicitly admits to committing the crime. In Sunni jurisprudence, despite differences among schools of thought, judicial knowledge is accepted to take precedence over confession in cases where it prevents the implementation of hadd punishments or averts injustice. Similarly, in Afghanistan’s legal system, judicial knowledge can, in certain cases, override the defendant’s confession. This study emphasizes the need to reconsider some judicial practices and to strengthen the role of judicial knowledge as a tool for uncovering the truth.