History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.24

v4.c63.24

The above is a meagre summary of Kauṭilya's section on kaṇṭakaśodhana. Kauṭilya is encyclopaedic on this subject as on several others. The number of offences dealt with by him is very large and his treatment in some respects compares favourably with such modern criminal codes as the Indian Penal Code. Many of the provisions contained in Kauṭ. IV are found in Yāj. (II. 273-304), in Nārada (in prakīrṇaka and elsewhere) and also in Manu (e. g. VIII. 365-368 about rape or adultery, VIII. 396-97 about washermen and weavers, IX. 225-226 about musicians and dancers, IX. 231-232, IX. 261-267). Why Kauṭ. treats of several offences under kaṇṭakaśodhana and not under the dharmasthīya section, it is somewhat difficult to say. It is probable that he included under dharmasthīya only those complaints or actions that were fought out between the parties, even though many of the wrongs complained of under vākpāruṣya, daṇḍapāruṣya, saṅgrahaṇa and steya were criminal and the same as those treated of in the section on kaṇṭakaśodhana. In wrongs dealt with in the kaṇṭakaśodhana section it was the king or king's officers who themselves brought up the offenders for punishment and the offences were viewed not as mere private matters, but as matters in which the State was concerned for the eradication of crime in general. Kauṭilya in III. 20 speaks of *prakīrṇaka* but therein he seems to include some miscellaneous matters like non-return of borrowed articles or deposits (at the proper time and place), evading payment of ferry tax under the pretence of being a brāhmaṇa, connection with a public woman kept by another, misappropriating revenue collected as agent for a householder, a cāṇḍāla's touching an Ārya woman, inviting for dinner in honour of Gods and Manes Buddhist or Ājīvaka or Śūdra mendicants, abandonment of parents, child, wife or husband, brother or sister, teacher or pupil (when not guilty of a grave sin), wrongful confinement of a person &c. Kauṭilya does not apparently include under prakīrṇaka all matters in which the king acts *suo motu* as Nār., Bṛ. and Kāt. do but includes these latter under kaṇṭakaśodhana. He, however, states here and there (IV. 1 and 13) that the matters dealt with under kaṇṭakaśodhana are quite analogous to those under such titles as daṇḍapāruṣya treated of under the dharmasthīya section. For example, in IV. 1. he says that if a physician through negligence causes loss of a vital part to a patient then the matter may be treated as daṇḍapāruṣya.³³³ So Kauṭilya probably represents a much earlier stage of judicial administration than Nār. or Bṛ., who included under prakīrṇaka all matters in which the king acted of his own motion (i. e. all that falls under kaṇṭakaśodhana in Kauṭ.).