Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions c10.23

Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions c10.23

Language
English

c10.23

Of judicial procedure there is very little sign in the inscriptions. But a rough and ready justice was dispensed, and disputes were often decided by an ordeal. In 1020, under Chōla rule, a dog, which had run away on the death of its master, was appropriated by a local chief. As a penalty for this, the king's officer on the spot went into his residence, dragged out the dog, burnt the place, and seizing fifty golden images belonging to the offender, sent them to the king (Hs 10, 11). In 1057 a young chief who was a powerful wrestler had a bout with an opponent, who was thrown and died in the crush. The latter was apparently some connection of the king's. For his share in this affair, the survivor was marched off straight to Talakāḍ the capital, and there put to death (Hg 18). It may thence perhaps be inferred that death was the appointed penalty for murder. In 1417, when a Gauḍa, who had gone to visit the local governor, fell down dead in his presence, a sort of inquest was held on the body, and it was sent back to his home (Sk 37). This was under Vijayanagar rule. Under the Gangas, in 910, the destroyer of a tank or grove is said to incur the same guilt as one who has committed the five great sins (Sr 34). In 1450 we find the theft of gold and drunkenness classed with the most heinous crimes, such as the slaughter of cows, or the murder of guru, wife and Brāhmans (Cd 29). In 1654 a farmer having been put to death unjustly by a Muhammadan official, a rakta-koḍagi, or grant of rent-free land, was given to his son as compensation (Yl 29). In 1757 orders had been sent from the Bednūr court to arrest an offender who was defying the law, but the local official, on capturing him, beheaded him. For this he seems to have been deprived of some land he owned. He afterwards petitioned that the pagadi money for the time the land was put out of season should be given to him. This was refused, with an order that petitions of this kind from the country for payment of money must not be made (Sk 209, 210).