History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.356

v4.c63.356

Judges often repeat from the Bench the words ‘witnesses may lie, but circumstances cannot’. But this so-called maxim is often dangerous. Circumstantial evidence leads to conclusions that are in several instances false. The ancient Hindu lawyers were quite aware of the dangers of drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence. Nārada’s warning has already been mentioned (p. 356). Kauṭ.⁵⁴⁸ (in IV. 8) remarks: ‘even one not a thief may by chance be on the way by which thieves pass and one meeting thieves is seen to be apprehended as a thief because he is mixed up in dress, arms and articles carried with the thieves or is found near the articles stolen, just as Māṇḍavya though not a thief declared himself to be a thief for fear of being subjected to torture; therefore (the king) should punish one only after thorough examination’. Māṇḍavya’s is a leading case on the danger of relying on purely circumstantial evidence. Bṛhaspati⁵⁴⁹ also remarks that ‘a decision should not be arrived at merely by relying on the words of texts; for, if judges come to a conclusion without applying careful reasoning, loss of dharma results; a thief is held to be not a thief and a good man is held to be a wicked one in a judical proceeding (not arrived at with proper reasoning). The sage Māṇḍavya was held to be a thief on account of the decision being arrived at without proper reasoning’⁵⁵⁰.