History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.500

v4.c63.500

in her monthly course touching intentionally members of the higher castes. It was also prescribed for offenders who were slaves or who were dependents and for women, minors, lunatics, old men, poor men and those suffering from diseases (Kāt.). The punishment of banishment was prescribed for brāhmaṇas guilty of the gravest offences meriting death sentence (Gaut. XII. 44, Manu IX. 241, VIII. 380, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 3 and 8, Baud Dh. S. I. 10. 19, Yāj. II. 270). It was often associated with branding. Banishment is also prescribed by Yāj. I. 339 for officers taking bribes (and also confiscation of all wealth), for a perjured brāhmaṇa witness (Yāj. II. 81), for one who embezzles the money of a corporation or transgresses the conventions agreed upon by a guild or village &c (Yāj. II. 187, Manu VIII. 219, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 167-168), for playing with false dice (Yāj. II. 202 and Nār., dyūtasamāhvaya 6), for a brāhmaṇa guilty of very heinous offences⁶⁴⁴ (Śānti 14. 116). Śukra (IV. 1. 98-108) contains a long list of offenders that deserve to be sentenced to banishment. Confiscation of all property was the punishment for several offences such as the commission of the *mahāpātakas* by persons other than brāhmaṇas, provided they committed them unintentionally (Manu IX. 242), for perjury, for taking bribes by *sabhyas* (Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 179-180). Nār. (prakīrṇaka 10-11) provides a humane rule that even when the king orders the confiscation of all the property of an offender he should not deprive the offender of the tools of his trade or the tools of his craft, such as arms in the case of a soldier, materials of art in the case of artisans, ornaments of courtezans, musical instruments of musicians. Śaṅkha-Likhita⁶⁴⁵ quoted by V. R. p. 656 contain a similar provision. Enhanced punishment was prescribed for committing an offence again. Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 93 holds that a king should never pardon or let off a man who is guilty of a second offence (though a first offender may be let off with a mere admonition). Kauṭ. IV. 10 states that when a person is a first offender as to theft at a holy place or as a pickpocket or house-breaking from the roof, his thumb and index finger may be cut off or he may be fined 54 paṇas, for a second offence all fingers may be cut or a fine of 100 paṇas may be levied; for a third offence the punishment is cutting of the right hand or a fine of 400 paṇas and for the fourth death in any way the king may direct. Manu IX. 277, Yāj. II. 274, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 136 contain a similar rule. Vide Āp. Dh. S. II. 10. 27. 11-13 for adultery. If several people conspire together and kill or injure a single man the punishment was to be double of what a single man committing the same offence would receive (Kauṭ. III. 19, Yāj. II. 221, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 73). As indicative of the superstitions of ancient (and even modern) times punishment for witchcraft may be mentioned. Kauṭ. IV. 4 prescribes⁶⁴⁶ the employment of spies to find out those who profess to use charms for securing illicit love and banish them and adds that persons who are engaged in witchcraft to injure others may be similarly dealt with. In the times of the Peshwas wizards⁶⁴⁷ and raisers of ghosts appear to have been frequent and were severely dealt with by the people themselves by being put to death, but the State generally confiscated the property or cut off the alleged wizard's finger. Up to the beginning of the 18th century even in England wretched old women were frequently convicted as witches and hanged⁶⁴⁸