Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s3.64

c10.s3.64

Kauṭalya who must have known the use and value of ordeals introduces judicial enquiry and thus anticipates early the development of the modern jury system. For cases involving severe punishments such as torture, the Kauṭalīya furnishes us with the sound and logical method of enquiry and trial on evidence. It is prescribed, Monahan says, that ‘if the defendant's answers to the questions addressed to him are corroborated by reliable witnesses he shall be acquitted ; otherwise he shall be subjected to torture.’ This latter means action would be taken against him. Again ‘the guilt of a suspected person should be established by the production of such evidence as the instruments used in committing the crime, accomplices and abettors, the stolen articles, and persons concerned in its sale or purchase. In the absence of such evidence the accused should be acquitted.’² Only those whose guilt has been proved shall be subjected to punishment. This is quite in keeping with Nārada’s question to Yudhiṣṭhira: ‘Do you not punish the innocent for their alleged wrongs contrary to the rule of law by means of your law-officers?’³