Conflict Between Confession and the Judge’s Knowledge in Agricultural Disputes and Offenses, With an Emphasis on Legislative Developments and Judicial Practice in Iran

The aim of this study is to clarify the position and interaction between the judge’s knowledge and confession in agricultural disputes and offenses, with an emphasis on legislative developments and judicial practice. This research was conducted using a descriptive–analytical method, drawing on library resources, statutory laws, legal doctrine, and the analysis of a case study. The findings indicate that in the field of agriculture, due to its direct connection with public order, natural resources, and food security, the judge’s knowledge based on technical and expert data takes precedence over confession in cases of conflict. From a theoretical perspective, Iranian agricultural law exemplifies a domain in which a conceptual shift from confession-centered to knowledge-centered adjudication has become necessary. Modern theories of evidentiary law, particularly the functional and realist approaches, assess the value of each piece of evidence based on its effectiveness in discovering the truth and achieving justice, rather than merely its origin or legal tradition. The Iranian legal system in agricultural disputes and offenses has increasingly moved toward a knowledge-centered and expertise-based approach in evidentiary procedures.