History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.905
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.905
- Language
- English
v4.c63.905.1
*Daṇḍapāruṣya* (assault). Kauṭ. III. 19 begins his treatment of this topic by saying that it comprises touching, threatening to strike and actually striking another⁹³¹. Nār. XVIII. 4 defines it as injuring the limbs of another with the hand, foot, weapon or other means (such as stones) or defiling or causing pain by (bringing) ashes and similar substances in contact with another. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 212 explains that even causing injury to animals and trees would fall under this title. Nār. XVIII. 5-6 provide that assault may be of three kinds viz. mild, middling and highly punishable according as a person merely makes preparations to assault or attacks without any qualm or causes a wound and that this crime can further be divided into three kinds according as the object attacked is low in value or middling or high. A verse from the Pariśiṣṭa (quoted by Sm. C. II. p. 327 and V. P. p. 370) states 'whoever causes pain or draws blood, wounds, breaks, cuts off, pierces (the limbs or bodies) of living beings is guilty of daṇḍapāruṣya'. According to Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 357 verse 1) *daṇḍapāruṣya*⁹³² consists in striking (a person) with the hand, with a stone, a club, ashes, mud, dust or a weapon. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 212 following Nār. XVIII. 7-12 lays down certain propositions about both abuse and assault. A person who does not return abuse or does not assault when abused or assaulted, deserves to be commended;
v4.c63.905.2
if he returns the abuse or assaults in return, the person who began the quarrel is to be dealt with more severely than the other. When two persons⁹³³ attack each other and there are no means for finding who began the quarrel equal punishment is to be awarded to both; but when two quarrel he who began the quarrel or he who persists longer than the other is to be fined more than the other party and lastly if men of the lowest⁹³⁴ castes such as *śvapāka*, *meda*, *cāṇḍāla*, hunters, elephant riders, vrātyas and dāsas (slaves) assault respectable men and ācāryas then they are to be punished (whipped) by good men then and there, but if such punishment is not possible, then the king should award corporal punishment (of various kinds according to the nature of the crime) and should not take fines from them, since they are the foulest among men and their wealth also is foul. Kāt. (783) and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 359 verse 15) are to the same effect. The several smṛtis lay down various punishments for various kinds of assaults but no useful purpose will be served by going into details. Kāt.⁹³⁵ (786) provides that just as in abuse punishments depend on the castes of the abuser and the abused so also in assaults higher punishment is to be awarded if the attacker is of a lower caste than the person attacked or lower punishment if the person attacked is of a lower caste. Manu VIII.
v4.c63.905.3
286 and Uśanas⁹³⁶ lay down that the punishment for the offence should be commensurate with the pain or injury caused by the offender to a man or beast. A few examples may be set out. Probably the oldest reference to fines for assault in Sanskrit literature is contained in the Taittirīya Saṁhitā⁹³⁷ II. 6. 10. 2: ‘He who threatens to strike a brāhmaṇa shall be fined with a hundred (cows or niṣkas?), he who strikes a brāhmaṇa shall be fined with a thousand; he who draws blood from him shall not behold the *pitṛs* for as many years as there are particles of dust mixed with the blood that falls on them’. This passage is interpreted in Jai. III. 938 4. 17 as being a recommendatory injunction (*puruṣārtha*) to all at all times to desist from assaulting a brāhmaṇa. Gaut. (21. 20–22) and Manu XI. 206–207 appear to take the Tai. S. passage differently and refer the figures of 100 and 1000 to years. Kauṭ. III. 19 prescribes various fines for various kinds of assaults. Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 357 verses 2, 3 and 7) says that if a person throws ashes or the like at another or beats him with the hand the fine should be one *māṣa*, but if he strikes with a brick, stone or stick the fine should be two *māṣakas*; this however applies when both are of the same caste, but if he assaults a woman who is another's wife or a person of a higher caste, the fine may be higher and higher.
v4.c63.905.4
For one who bruises the skin of another or draws blood by assault the fine is one hundred paṇas, and for him who causes a wound by removing some flesh the fine is six māṣakas and he who causes breaking of bones should be banished (Manu VIII. 284 = Nār. XVIII. 29). Kāt. prescribes the highest amercement for cutting off the ear, the lip, the nose, the foot, the eye, the tongue, the penis, the hand, and the middle amercement for causing injury (or wounding). Gaut. XII. 1, Kauṭ. III. 19, Manu VIII.⁹³⁹ 279, Yāj. II. 215, Bṛ. provide the punishment of the cutting of that limb with which a śūdra strikes a person of the three higher castes. And the Mit. on Yāj. II. 215 applies by analogy the same rule to a vaiśya striking a kṣatriya. Manu VIII. 280 extends the same punishment to a śūdra for merely raising the hand or a club to strike one of a higher caste. Manu VIII. 281–283 (=Nār. XVIII. 26–28) provide that a person of a low caste defiantly sitting on the same seat with one of a higher caste was to be first branded on the waist and then banished or his hips were to be gashed (in such a way that he might not die), that a śūdra defiantly spitting on the body of a brāhmaṇa had his lips cut off or a śūdra voiding urine or fæces on a brāhmaṇa had those offending limbs cut off, or a śūdra defiantly seizing a brāhmaṇa by the hair or the feet or beard or neck or testicles would have both his hands cut off.
v4.c63.905.5
If several conspire and strike a person who is alone, each one was to be sentenced to twice the punishment prescribed for the offence (Yāj. II. 221, Kauṭ.⁹⁴⁰ III. 19, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 73). Kauṭ. III. 19, Manu VIII. 287, Yāj. II. 222, Bṛ., Kāt. 787, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 75–76 provide that the king should make an offender pay a fine and also the expenses of medical treatment and diet till the wound is healed up and the person attacked is able to do his usual work (vide note 613 above). For mischief to property⁹⁴¹ and for killing or maiming animals, Kauṭ., Manu, Yājñavalkya and others provide various fines. For example, Kauṭ. III. 19 prescribes that when property of small value is destroyed by a man he should be punished with fine equal to the value of the article and should be made to restore the article or its value to the owner; but in the case of articles of substantial value the fine is double of the value. Manu VIII. 288 is of similar import. Yāj. II. 223 provides varying fines if a person wrongfully causes damage to a wall by knocking it (with a club), or pierces it or divides it into two or demolishes it and makes the offender pay to the owner the cost of restoring it. Manu. VIII. 296–298, Yāj. II. 225–226 prescribe fines for causing death or injury to animals of small value (such as goats) and big animals like elephants, horses and cows. Yāj. II. 227–229, Kauṭ. III. 19, and Kāt. 793 provide fines for causing loss by injuring or felling trees, shrubs and creepers. Yāj. II.
v4.c63.905.6
214 holds⁹⁴² that if a person throws mud, dust or saliva or filthy things on another or strikes with his feet, he should not be fined if he is under the influence of intoxicants at the time or is not in his right mind or does it through mistake, while Kauṭ. III. 19 prescribes half of the usual fine in such cases.