History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.347

v4.c63.347

It is stated by Bṛhaspati that *anumāna* (inference⁵⁴¹ or presumption), as a means of deciding a law suit, is of three kinds, but it is inferior to witnesses (vide note 433 above). Vyāsa (q. by Sm. C. II. p. 95) states that *anumāna* is the same as *hetu* and *tarka*. V. P. (p. 167) remarks that (long continued) possession and the frequent urging by the creditor both lead to the inference of title and the taking of a loan respectively and are therefore to be comprehended under *yukti* according to the definition of Kātyāyana. Yet by popular usage *yukti* is restricted to presumptions arising from certain circumstances on the analogy of the maxim of 'gobalīvarda' explained below under 'steya'. Yukti therefore means circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn about a fact in issue in a judical poceeding. Āp. Dh.⁵⁴² S. II. 11. 29. 6 says that in case of doubt (judges) should decide from signs (i. e. by inference) or divine proof (ordeals). Vas. 19. 39 mentions the view of some sages that one who is found armed or wounded or in possession of the booty (stolen) may be declared to be (the thief or offender). Manu IX. 270 (= Matsya 227. 166) requires the just king not to condemn to death one accused of theft unless his guilt is proved as certain by proof that the accused had in his possession the articles stolen and tools for theft (for house-breaking). 'An adulterer is proved⁵⁴³ to be so by being caught in such acts as playing with the hair of another's wife, an incendiary by being caught with a firebrand in his hand (near the house set on fire), a murderer by being found (near the murdered man) armed and a thief when caught with some of the articles stolen in his possession'—say Śaṅkha-Likhita⁵⁴⁴.