History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.386.2

v4.c63.386.2

(217) and Pitāmaha is that ordeals were to be resorted to only if no human evidence (witnesses, documents, possession) or circumstantial evidence was available. Kāt. (218-219) prescribes that⁵⁷² if one party relies on human means of proof and the other on divine proof, the king (or judge) is to accept human means and not divine and that if human means of proof reach (i. e. are able to establish) only a part of the allegations (in the plaint), then human means should be accepted and no divine modes of proof, even though they may be complete (i.e. completely cover all allegations). When Nār. II. 30 (= IV. 241) states that divine means of proof are to be resorted to when a transaction takes place in a forest, in a lonely place, at night, inside a house, in cases of *sāhasa* and when a deposit is denied, or when Kāt. (230) prescribes that trial by ordeals is to be resorted to in the case of persons accused of committing *sāhasa* in secret (i.e. by wearing masks &c.),⁵⁷³ those words only apply where it is impossible to have human evidence. Kāt. (229) states an exception to this viz. when the dispute⁵⁷⁴ investigated is about *sāhasa* or about assault or abuse and defamation and in causes that spring from the use of force there is an option that witnesses or divine proof may be resorted to. Nār. IV. 242 states that divine proof could be resorted to when the chastity of women was in question, in theft and *sāhasa* and in all cases of the denial of monetary liability.