History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.471.2

v4.c63.471.2

16, VIII 126 and Yāj. I. 368 (=Vṛddha-Hārīta VII. 195-196), Bṛhat Parāśara p. 284, Kauṭ. IV. 10 lay down that the award of punishment must be regulated by a consideration of the motive and nature of the offence, the time and place, the strength, age, conduct (or duties), learning and monetary position of the offender and by the fact whether the offence⁶²² is repeated. This provision means that the dharmaśāstras did not hold that the same punishment must be meted out for the same offence irrespective of the antecedents, characteristics or physical and mental condition of the offender. They always took extenuating circumstances into account. Kauṭ. (I. 4), differing from the view of the ācāryas that there is nothing like daṇḍa for bringing under one's complete control all beings, gives his own opinion that, as a king whose control and punishments are most severe makes the subjects disgusted with him and as the king who deals mild punishments is disregarded by the people, the king should distribute punishments according to the deserts of the offenders and would then command respect.⁶²³ One reason why some of the works on dharmaśāstra prescribe mild punishments is the doctrine of *karmavipāka* (a man committing certain sins is born in the next life afflicted with certain diseases or bodily deficiencies or is born as a low or filthy beast or bird). Vide Manu XI. 49-52, Yāj. III 207-216, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 44-45. This doctrine will be dealt with later on under *pātaka* and *prāyaścitta*.