History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.314

v4.c63.314

When there are many witnesses but they differ in their statements certain rules are laid down by Manu VIII. 73 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 39), Yāj. II. 78, Nār. IV. 229, Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 303 v. 35), Kāt. (408). They are briefly these:⁵¹⁹ The statement of the majority of witnesses should be accepted, but if they are equally divided then the statement of those who are more pure (in character or more disinterested) should be accepted and if the meritorious are divided equally then those who are the best among them should be accepted as true. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 78 adds that if there is a conflict of testimony between the statements of a few but eminently qualified witnesses on the one hand and those of a larger number of ordinary witnesses, then the former should be accepted as Yāj. II. 72 requires i. e. it prefers quality to mere numbers. Kauṭ. III. 11 prescribes that when there is conflict in the oral evidence the decision should be according to the evidence of the majority of witnesses or of those who are pure in character or of those who are approved of by both sides as good witnesses or a mean should be drawn from their statements. Nār. IV. 160 and Kāt. 359 state⁵²⁰ that if one out of the (three) witnesses attesting a document or out of (three) witnesses that are cited by a party deposes in a way contradictory to what is deposed to by the other two, then all the three become incompetent witnesses on account of contradiction. This has been interpreted by the Vyavahāramātṛkā (p. 326) to mean that where all witnesses are of equal status and there is a majority of only one favouring one side, then all the witnesses are incompetent and oral evidence is in that case futile for decision.