Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s23: Judicial.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s23

Language
English

Judicial.

v3.c41.s23.1

The next, and according to Hindu ideas the most important, function of the state is the Judicial. The Hindu king from the most ancient times personally dispensed justice to his people and sat in court every morning to hear suits (Manu). In his absence the Prāḍvivāka (judge) acted for him. In mediæval times the same practice obtained as may be seen from the Rājatarangiṇī (Vol. I. p. 206). There is no mention of the Prāḍvivāka, however, among officers of the court in inscriptions and as stated before the king probably always himself dispensed justice with the aid of his ministers and sabhyas or assessors, according to Smṛiti rules. The officer named Daṇḍanāyaka mentioned in almost all inscriptions was the magistrate in the district. He awarded punishments when the accused was tried in his court before himself and a jury. According to Smṛitis there is no difference between civil and criminal proceedings. All civil and criminal cases came under certain heads and in each the losing party was punished with fine and in cases of heinous offences imprisonment, mutilation or death. The police and the jail were probably under the Daṇḍanāyaka and there were co-ordinate officers with him, named Dāṇḍika and Daṇḍapāśika (Bengal. J. R. LXIX p. 71). There was also a special officer in each district for catching thieves and robbers called Chauroddharaṇika. Hindu law and Hindu states attached great importance to the ferretting out of thieves and robbers and these were mercilessly punished when caught red-handed, having always their left hands cut off.

v3.c41.s23.2

∗ The Mogul Dām was a copper coin and not a silver one and 40 Dāms made one rupee.

v3.c41.s23.3

Minor criminal cases were always disposed of by village Pañchayats or village officers. The expression ‘sadaśāparādha’ used in every inam grant-deed shows, according to our view, that ten offences of a minor character were finally disposable by the village officers and hence in inam villages the inamdar had the right to try them and to have the fines levied in connection with them. With regard to other offences and higher civil disputes, the practice must have been for the complainant or suitor to appear either before the king or before his district representative the Rājasthānīya or Daṇḍanāyaka who probably had the same power as the king to try cases with the help of assessors. And further Hindu judicial system knew no appeals; a person losing his case in the district court might take it before the king and the case was tried de novo if the king thought fit. Apparently this was the practice even down to the days of the Peshwas.

v3.c41.s23.4

Finally, we may quote here what Al-Beruni records in this connection (chap. LXV p. 158): “The plaintiff has to file a statement and his document. If there is no written document witnesses are produced, at least four being required.

v3.c41.s23.5

Cross examination of witnesses is not allowed. Brahmins and Kshatriyas are not punished for murder; but they are expelled the kingdom after confiscation of property. For theft a Brahmin is blinded and his left hand and right foot are cut off. A Kshatriya, however, is not blinded. Other castemen are killed.” This evidence shows the severity of punishment inflicted even on a Brahmin for theft in this sub-period. There is no rule in Smritis as to the number of witnesses. As the parties were never represented by pleaders (entirely a British institution in India) cross-examination was perhaps never thought of. But the great formality in swearing of witnesses and the dread of punishment in the next world probably made witnesses more truthful than now. The august presence of the king must also have added its influence in compelling witnesses to tell the truth. This must also have reduced the number of cases, especially civil, to the minimum.

v3.c41.s23.6

Al-Beruni describes the various kinds of ordeals which were resorted to in cases of extreme doubt. Perhaps he speaks from law books and not from observation. For it has always been a mystery as to how any party could consent to perform such ordeals as are described, since the man performing the ordeal is always sure to be defeated, as nature must have her course whether the party performing the ordeal was right or wrong, unless some trick was resorted to. Whatever the explanation, ordeals are prescribed in Hindu law books; and apparently they were resorted to in this sub-period also, as evidenced by Al-Beruni.

Linked texts (2)