The Colas c25.47.2

c25.47.2

Even deliberate civil war started under cover of night and ending in the death of a general and the *satī* of his wife in the sixth year of the reign of Kulōttunga was only punished by the culprit being required to endow a lamp; this course had the approval of Ediriliśōḷa Śambuvarāya, the overlord of the dead general, and of the elders of the *nāḍu* (*nāṭṭu puruṣar*). In a solitary example from the Mysore country, assault and murder lead to the award of capital punishment by the *nāṭṭarāja* of Hulimadda.¹²⁹ In a case of homicide due to an accident in the reign of Kulōttunga II, the judge expressly stated that the guilty man need not die for his offence¹³⁰—a recognition of the fact that homicide may be punished with death. In another similar instance, some years later in the same reign, a *veḷḷāḷa* was the offender; the case came up before an officer of the king's government, he consulted the *bhaṭṭas*, and they advised him that death sentence should not be meted out to a *veḷḷāḷa*.¹³¹ There is recorded an interesting case of vicarious punishment, about 1091¹³² in the reign of Kulōttunga I. A boy of six, while cutting wood with the sickle (*arivāḷ*), hurt another lad of seven, who died in consequence of the injury; the father was required to endow half-a-lamp in expiation of the boy's offence. Another case of what appears like a penance, rather than punishment following an enquiry, comes from the reign of Kulōttunga III;