The Mauryan Polity c8.s4.t4.7

c8.s4.t4.7

The interpretation of the title of the chapter goes a long way in settling an important issue. A careful study of the chapter in the light of the above interpretation goes to prove that only avowed culprits were ubjected to torture and not the ‘suspected’.¹ Kauṭalya no doubt does not mention the ordeals of fire, water, etc., recommended in the law-codes. These ordeals were in vogue for long after Kauṭalya. Hence the author of the *Arthaśāstra* could not be charged with ignorance of that age-long institution. What is therefore reasonable to infer is that Kauṭalya regarded these ordeals as questionable expedients, the application of which was restricted to cases involving more than a thousand *paṇas*² and introduces the more healthy method of judicial enquiry, thus sowing the seeds of the modern jury system. That punishment was meted out only after the guilt had been proved is evident from the following, among other statements of the Kauṭalīya. It is said that the guilt of a suspected person should be proved by the production of such evidence as the instruments used in committing the crime, accomplices and abettors, the stolen articles and persons concerned in their sale or purchase. In the absence of such evidence the accused should be acquitted.”³