The Colas c25.47.1

c25.47.1

That theft, adultery and forgery were considered serious offences is seen from the list of persons declared unfit for service on the village committees of Uttaramērūr.¹²⁴ In this list of exclusions are mentioned also persons who had ridden upon donkeys, and possibly this was the form of punishment for some offences. Considering that most offences appear to have been punished only by fines, and that even man-slaughter and murder¹²⁵ were often punished only by the offender being required to maintain a perpetual lamp burning in the nearest temple, the code must be held to have erred on the side of leniency. In one instance, when a *nāḍāḻvān* stabbed to death a commander of a regiment of bowmen, the king, Rājēndra II, sent an order to the local village assembly that the culprit was to be required to endow 96 sheep for a lamp in the neighbouring temple.¹²⁶ In another, a woman committed suicide, being unable to stand the pain or the shame of an ordeal to which she was subjected by a village official for the recovery of dues which she said she was not liable for; the man is let off with a fine of 32 *kāśus* imposed by a meeting of the people from 'the four quarters, eighteen districts and various countries.'¹²⁷ In yet another, when one soldier killed another, he came to an agreement with the relatives of the deceased and endowed a lamp in the temple at Karutttaṭṭānguḍi, near Tanjore,¹²⁸—an instance of private commutation for murder.