Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s4.24

c10.s4.24

Here there are two or three chief points which we must not fail to take note of. The king was an autocrat guided by vicious councillors who had no regard for established law and usage. Yājñavalkya rules that the king should mete out punishment according to the nature of the crime, strength of the case, place, time, and so on.¹ Secondly this autocracy paid a heavy price by the whole ruling family being cut off from the reigning line. Thirdly in spite of tyranny there was trial to elicit the truth and there was no application of torture. Fourthly executioners themselves had a sense of justice. One of them actually delayed the time of the execution which alone saved the life of the innocent Chārudatta. For one of the executioners stated it as the advice of his late father to make reasonable delay and give the culprit a lucky chance of escape. For some munificent gentleman might come forward to effect his liberty by paying a compensation price, which is the vārya or vanadeya of the Vedic literature. Or the king may suddenly beget a son and consequently there would be a reversion of the original order. Or again the royal elephant may suddenly turn frantic and in the panic he could escape with life; or there may be a change of ruling dynasty and royal clemency would give him freedom.² What we have to gather from this is that even in autocratic states the administration of justice had developed itself on such healthy lines that open trial by the jury was the consequence. But it might be that partiality was exhibited now and then. And in this particular case Chārudatta expresses his dissatisfaction with the process of investigation and pleads for the test by any of the ordeals, water, fire, poison, or balance.¹ To these Yājñavalkya adds koṣa. This indicates beyond doubt that the ordeals died hard in the Hindu administration, and continued to exist side by side with the process of trial by jury which took its place by slow but sure degrees.²