History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.936

v4.c63.936

As regards the concealed thieves the texts lay down special rules. Nār. XVII. 21 extends to theft of the three kinds mentioned above the same punishments that are awarded in the three kinds of sāhasa. Manu VIII. 323 prescribes death sentence for kidnapping men of good family and particularly women and for theft of costly jewels; while Vyāsa prescribes death by burning on red-hot iron bed for kidnapping women and mutilation of hands and feet for kidnapping a man. Yāj. II. 273 provides impalement for those who confine others as captives, for those who steal horses and elephants and who strike others with violence, while Manu IX. 280 prescribes death for those who break royal store-houses and armoury, the inner shrine in a temple and who steal horses, chariots and elephants. For him who commits theft by housebreaking at night Manu (IX. 276) and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 361, verse 17) provide impalement⁹⁵⁴ after cutting off his hands. Yāj. II. 274, Manu IX. 277, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 136 prescribe for the cut-purse the punishment of the cutting of the thumb and index finger for the first offence, the cutting of the hand and foot if it is the second offence and death if he repeats the same offence a third time. Not only was the thief made to undergo punishment but he was also liable to make good the loss of property to the person robbed (Manu VIII. 320, Yāj. II. 270, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 89, Nār. pariśiṣṭa 21). According to Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 22-24) for thefts of articles of small value the fine was five times their price, while Manu (VIII. 326-329) said it was twice as much as the price. Gaut. XII. 12-14,⁹⁵⁵ Manu VIII. 337-338, Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 51-52) lay down that the fine for theft is higher in the case of the higher castes i. e. if the śūdra thief is fined eight times of the value of the article stolen, the vaiśya, kṣatriya and brāhmaṇa thieves were respectively fined 16, 32 and 64 times the price of the article, as each is deemed to know better owing to his higher status and culture. Manu VIII. 380 lays down the general rule that a brāhmaṇa offender was not to be killed whatever the offence might be but he was to be banished from the country allowing him to take with him all his wealth. But there were other provisions and exceptions also. Kāt.⁹⁵⁶ (823) states that the school of the Mānavas declared that thieves caught with the stolen things on them should be at once banished but that the school of Gautama disapproved of this mode, since it is condemned because it entails loss (reduction) of people in the country. The V. R. p. 332 explains this verse as referring to a learned brāhmaṇa. Two more verses of Kāt. (824-825) are quoted by V. R. p. 332 and V. C. p. 92 the first of which provides that a brāhmaṇa who is not learned whether caught with booty or not should be branded (with the appropriate signs) and deprived of all his property, provided his guilt is brought home with certainty and the second provides that a brāhmaṇa thief who is neither learned nor rich but is strongly built should be kept under guard with fetters on his feet, should be fed on meagre food and made to do hard labour for the king till his death. Gaut. XII. 46-48, Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 13-14), Manu IX. 271 and 278, Kāt. (827) hold that the punishment for those who knowingly give food, fire (when they feel cold), water or asylum to thieves or who receive or purchase stolen property or who conceal them are to be punished like the thieves themselves.⁹⁵⁷ Yāj. II. 276 prescribes the highest amercement for any one who knowingly gives help to a thief or murderer in the above ways or by directions or by supplying tools or money wherewith to go to a place for committing the offence.