History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.352

v4.c63.352

Kauṭ.⁵⁴⁵ IV. 12 and Yāj. II. 283 similarly say that adultery may be inferred from (the man and woman) being caught in the act of dalliance with the hair or from the signs left (such as marks of nails or teeth on the lips, cheek &c.) after carnal enjoyment or from the admission of the woman concerned (or of both). Nār. (IV. 172-175) declares that there are six kinds of disputes in which the indications (or circumstances) themselves serve as witnesses and lead to a conclusion without the testimony of witnesses viz. one found with a fire-brand in his hand (near the scene of arson) may be inferred to be the incendiary, one armed⁵⁴⁶ (found near the scene of murder) as the murderer, one caught dallying with the hair of another's wife as an adulterer, one with a spade in his hand near a breached embankment as the person who caused the breach in it and one armed with an axe as the feller of a tree, a person guilty of an assault may be inferred to be so from visible signs (such as his club or sword being smeared with blood). But Nār. IV. 176 gives the warning that in such cases it is necessary to be careful in arriving at a conclusion, since a person in order to bring into trouble another whom he hates may create marks of injury on himself. Kāt. (337-338) further provides⁵⁴⁷ that where one litigant proves as against his opponent (such as a debtor) either the offer of a bribe, or the effacing of the means of recognition (such as effacing one's signature on a document) or holding out temptations (to the witnesses or *sabhyas*) or the concealment of his wealth (to avoid its being attached in execution of a decree), there the original claim (such as a debt) may be presumed to be proved even if he (the opponent) denies his liability.