History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.929
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.929
- Language
- English
v4.c63.929.1
*Steya* is distinguished from *sāhasa* in Manu VIII. 332, Kauṭ. III. 17, Nār. XVII. 12 and other works as stated under sāhasa below. Kāt. 810 defines948b it as 'depriving a man of his wealth either clandestinely or openly and either by night or by day'. Nār. XVII. 17 defines it as 'deprivation of wealth by various means from people that are asleep, careless or intoxicated'. It may be of three kinds according to the value of the thing stolen viz. trifling (when earthen-ware, seats, cots, wood, hides, grass, beans in pods or cooked food is stolen) or middling (when the theft relates to clothes except silken ones, animals except cows and bulls, metals except gold, rice and barley), grave or high (when gold, jewels, silken cloth, women, men, cattle, elephants, horses and the wealth of brāhmaṇas or temples is stolen). Vide Nār. XVII. 13-16 and Yāj. II. 275. Thieves are either *prakāśa* (open or patent) or *aprakāśa* (secret) acc. to Manu IX. 256, Bṛ.⁹⁴⁹ (S. B. E. 33 p. 359 v. 2). Acc. to Manu IX. 258-260, Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 2-3) and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 360 verses 3-4) patent thieves are traders who employ false weights and balances, gamblers, quacks, bribers of *sabhyas*, prostitutes, those who profess to arbitrate, those who manufacture imitation articles, those who subsist by prognosticating good fortune or portents or by magic or palmistry, false witnesses &c. Manu (IX.
v4.c63.929.2
261-266) states that in order to find out such thieves the king should employ spies in various disguises at various places such as meeting halls, refreshment rooms, brothels, wineshops, theatres &c. The concealed thieves are those who move about with tools for house-breaking without being observed and whose residence is not known; they are principally⁹⁵⁰ of nine kinds viz. one who quietly relieves a man of his money when the latter is attending to something else, a house-breaker, a highway robber (who robs travellers), a cut-purse, one who steals (or kidnaps) a woman or a man, cattle, horses and other animals. Yāj. II. 266-268 and Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 9-12) indicate the various ways in which thieves may be detected and caught viz. by the (police) officers recovering a part of the booty from a man or by tracing foot-steps, or by seizing one who has been often found to be a thief, or by finding out that the man suspected cannot state his place of residence; and they recommend that on suspicion others may be caught, if on being questioned they attempt to conceal their caste or name or if they are found addicted to gambling, wine and women or if their mouth becomes dry or their voice changes or if they spend lavishly though they have no ostensible means of earning, or those who sell lost or second-hand goods or who move about in disguise or who are found making inquiries about others' houses or wealth. The Mit. on Yāj.⁹⁵¹ II. 268 quotes Nār.
v4.c63.929.3
and gives the warning that the king must carefully examine whether the man caught is really the thief and should not convict merely on suspicion, since even an innocent man may have stolen property near him or betray some of the signs noted above. When property alleged to be stolen is found with a man, it may be that the articles came to his hands from another's hand or he may have taken it up when it lay unclaimed on the ground or he may have taken it as a thief; liars often have the appearance of honest men and *vice versa* (Nār. I. 71)⁹⁵². Nārada's dictum (I. 42) that one who is not a thief may be held to be a thief as in the case of Māṇḍavya has already been quoted above (p. 357n. 549). Vide Manu IX. 270 (= Matsya 227. 166) cited on p. 355 above. When a person is seized on suspicion of being a thief he could not be acquitted on his mere denial of the offence. He had to prove innocence by ordinary evidence (such as proof that he was elsewhere when the theft was committed) or ordeals (Yāj. II. 269). The general rule about the punishment of patent thieves was that the punishment was to be proportionate to the lightness or gravity of the crime and not to their wealth (Vyāsa)⁹⁵³. Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 361 verses 10 ff) quoted in Par. M. III. pp. 439-440 and V. P. pp. 387-88 prescribes various punishments for particular kinds of patent thieves e. g. sabhyas giving wrong decisions (for bribes) or those who deceive by betraying the trust imposed in them are to be banished. Manu IX.
v4.c63.929.4
292 (= Matsya 227. 184-185) holds that the goldsmith is the worst of all deceitful persons (*kaṇṭakas*) and if he is found committing fraud his limbs should be cut off bit by bit.