History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.280.1

v4.c63.280.1

Long lists of persons who are generally to be regarded as incompetent to be witnesses are given in Kauṭ. III. 11, Manu VIII. 64-67, Udyogaparva 35. 44-47, Yāj. II. 70-71, Nār. IV. 177-187, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 1-4, Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 303 vv. 29-30), Kāt. 360-364 (q. by Aparārka pp. 669-670, Sm. C. II. pp. 77-78, V. P. p. 119). Manu VIII. 118 states the general grounds why oral evidence tends to be false viz. covetousness, infatuation, fear, desire of pleasures, anger, friendship, ignorance, minority. As the list of incompetent witnesses in Nār. is the longest,⁴⁹² that alone is set out here: one who has monetary⁴⁹³ interest in the parties or the subject matter of the suit (such as a co-sharer, creditor and debtor of the parties); a friend (or relative such as an uncle); associate (in undertakings); enemy; one who has already been held to have given false evidence; one charged with (or addicted to) sins; a slave; one who is in the habit of finding the weak points of others (or harming others); one who has no faith in religion; a very old man (above 80 years); a minor; a woman; an oil-presser; one intoxicated; a lunatic; one who is extremely inattentive; one distressed; a gambler; a village priest; one who undertakes long journeys (on the great roads); one who is a merchant engaged in sea voyages; an ascetic (who has renounced the world); one sick; one bereft of a limb; one who is the only witness; a brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda;