History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.338

v4.c63.338

Gaut. 13. 24-25, Vas. 16. 36, Manu VIII. 104, Yāj. II. 83, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 15 prescribe that a witness may depose falsely in a cause when, if he were to speak the truth, a person of the four varṇas is liable to suffer the sentence of death. Manu VIII. 105-106, Yāj. II. 83, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 16 prescribe that as a penance for the falsehood a witness of the three higher castes may offer three oblations of boiled rice to the goddess of speech (Sarasvatī) or he may offer into fire clarified butter with the mantras called Kūṣmāṇḍa (Vāj. S. XX. 14-16 or Tai Ā. X. 3-5), or with the three verses beginning with 'yaddevā devaheḍanam' or with the verse sacred to Varuṇa (viz. Ṛg. I. 24. 15, 'uduttamam varuṇa') or with three verses of which waters are the deity (Ṛg. X. 9. 1-3 'āpo hi ṣṭhā)'. Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 17 adds that a śūdra guilty of perjury in the above case may by way of expiation feed ten cows for one day. It is strange that the dharmaśāstra works should permit perjury to save a culprit from being sentenced to death. Probably popular sentiment of old standing allowing the speaking of falsehood in certain cases was responsible for this. In the Mahābhārata frequent reference is made to the permission to speak untruth in ordinary life when one's own life or another's life is in imminent danger. Vide Śānti⁵³⁶ 45. 35, 109. 19. It is stated in Śānti 165. 30 that speaking falsely is not a sin in five cases viz. in jest, to women, at the time of (i. e. in bringing about) a marriage, for the preservation of great wealth and for one's life. Vas. 16. 36 mentions those five occasions somewhat differently. Vide Manu VIII. 112 also for a similar rule. But so old a sage as Gaut. (23. 29) implies that he disapproves of this sentiment⁵³⁷, when he states, 'according to some falsehood entails no fault (i. e. no expiation need be performed) in (bringing about or breaking promises made at)