History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.929.3

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.