History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.471.1

v4.c63.471.1

Manu VIII. 129, Yāj. I. 367 and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 387 verse 5), Vṛddha-Hārīta (7.195) speak of four methods of punishment (*daṇḍa*) viz. by gentle admonition, by severe reproof, by fine and by corporal punishment and declare that these punishments may be inflicted separately or together according to the nature of the offence.⁶²¹ The first takes the form of saying, 'you have not done a proper thing', the 2nd 'fie upon you who are a wrongdoer and guilty of *adharma*'. Bṛ. lays down that preceptors, *purohitas* and sons should be sentenced to the punishment of wordy admonition, other persons who engage in disputes should be punished with reproof or fines and those guilty of mahāpātakas should be punished with corporal punishment. That admonition and reproof were two modes of punishment shows that ancient writers were alive to the notion that among very sensitive persons or in a very sensitive society verbal condemnation would be enough to achieve the main purposes of punishment. Bṛ. (SBE vol. 33. p. 388 verse 8) states that the first two are within the privilege of the brāhmaṇa (appointed as chief justice) but fines and corporal punishment are to be inflicted by the king (on the recommendation of the chief justice, *prāḍvivākamate sthitaḥ*). The Mṛcchakaṭika (IX) bears this out when the judge says 'We have authority only to pronounce the judgment; as to the rest the king is the final authority' (*nirṇaye vayaṁ pramāṇaṁ śeṣe tu rājā*). Gaut. XII. 51, Vas. 19. 9, Manu VII.