History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.271

v4.c63.271

But Yāj. II. 72, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 9, Nār. IV. 192 state that one man alone may be a witness in a cause if he is endowed with the regular performance of his religious duties (is possessed of the qualities stated in Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 8) and is accepted as a witness by both sides. Vide Manu VIII. 77 also. Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 301 v. 18) allows a single witness to furnish valid proof if he is a dūtaka⁴⁸⁶ (messenger), an accountant, one who has accidentally witnessed the transaction or if he is the king or the chief justice. Vyāsa says⁴⁸⁷ that even a single person may be enough in a cause, especially in heinous offences called *sāhasa*, if he be one whose actions are pure, who knows the *dharma* and whose truthfulness has been well attested before. Kauṭ. (III. 11) says that a single witness (whether a man or a woman) may be enough in cases where the transaction in question was effected in secret (except the king and one performing austerities).⁴⁸⁸ Kāt. (353-355 q. by V. M. pp. 319-320, Sm. C. II. 76, V. P. pp. 112-113) states that even a single person may be allowed to depose as a witness if he was taken in confidence at the time of making a deposit; so also a messenger sent by a litigant for borrowing an article (such as an ornament) or the manufacturer of an article may alone be sufficient to prove the identity of the article or when a matter has been decided by the king or chief judge, the scribe, the chief justice or any one of the sabhyas may alone prove the plea of *res judicata* or the point as to what was said by the plaintiff or the defendant in a suit⁴⁸⁹. Vide Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 300 verses 13-14).