History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.952
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.952
- Language
- English
v4.c63.952.1
Sāhasa is divided by Nār. XVII. 3-6 and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 363 verse 24) into three varieties, viz. the lowest (destruction, abuse and trampling of fruits, roots, water, agricultural implements), middling (destruction &c. of clothes, food and drink, household utensils), highest (killing with weapons or poison, violence to others' wives and whatever causes pain to sentient beings). These three kinds are respectively punished with the three kinds of punishments described above (pp. 393-94). The principal crimes included under sāhasa in its narrow sense are homicide, rape and robbery. Rape will be dealt with under *strīsaṅgrahaṇa*. Bṛ.⁹⁶⁷ states the general rule that one guilty of murder by violence should be punished with death and not with fines (S. B. E 33 p. 363 v. 29). To this the brāhmaṇa offender was an exception (Manu IX. 241), who was only to be banished. Manu IX. 242 introduces another exception viz. persons other than brāhmaṇas when guilty of the great sins (specified in IX. 235) through negligence should be only deprived of all their property but if they murder a man intentionally then only are they to be sentenced to death. Manu IX. 232 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 9-11 provide the punishment of death for those who fabricate false royal edicts, or who tamper with the loyalty of the elements of the State or who kill women, children and brāhmaṇas. Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 20-21, Bṛ.
v4.c63.952.2
and Vyāsa prescribe⁹⁶⁸ that if a brāhmaṇa is killed by a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, the king should sentence the offender to death in various ways and confiscate all his property, but if a man kills another of his own caste or of a lower caste then the king may punish the offender with some punishment appropriate to the crime and the strength of the offender. In IV. 11 Kauṭ. provides sentences of death in various ways for murder following ancient śāstras, but remarks that if murderers have not been guilty of cruelty they should simply be sentenced to death without torture or the like⁹⁶⁹. One special rule deserves notice. Gaut. 22. 12, Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 24 6-9, Manu XI. 87, Vas. 20. 34, Yāj. III. 251 prescribe the same prāyaścitta for murdering a brāhmaṇa woman who is an *ātreyī* as for one who kills a brāhmaṇa male. The different meanings of ‘ātreyī’ given from ancient times are noted below⁹⁷⁰. Texts like Āp. I. 9. 24. 1-5, Gaut. XXII prescribe different prāyaścittas for murder depending upon the castes and sexes of the murderer and the murdered. These will be briefly dealt with under prāyaścitta later on. In certain cases acc. to Manu VIII. 291-292, Yāj. II. 298-299, Kauṭ. IV. 13, though death or injury to persons or loss of property results, no punishment was prescribed viz.
v4.c63.952.3
when the nose-string of bulls yoked to a cart snaps, when the yoke breaks, when the cart swerves on one side owing to the unevenness of the ground, when the axle or wheel breaks or when the leather thongs with which the several parts of the cart are tied give way, or when the rope cast round the necks of bulls or the reins break or when in spite of the driver loudly calling upon a person to move aside from the way an accident occurs. But Manu VIII. 293, 294 (=Matsya 227. 95-96) provide that where through the want of skill of the driver knowingly engaged by a master the cart is overturned and injury is caused, the master should be fined 200 paṇas, but if the driver employed be known to be skilful, then when injury is caused the driver should be fined (and not the employer). Further if the driver, though seeing that the road is blocked by cattle or other carts, rashly drives and kills men and animals he should be punished (Manu VIII. 295). It is stated by Nār. (pāruṣya 32, S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 212) that the father is not liable for his son's offence, nor is the owner of a horse, dog or ape liable to punishment (for injury caused by any of these) provided they are not set up (to do harm) by the owner. If a driver kills a man by rash or negligent driving he is to be punished like a thief; if he kills any one of the larger animals (such as a cow, a horse, a camel or elephant) the punishment would be half of the preceding;
v4.c63.952.4
if he kills one of the inferior animals, the fine would be two hundred. Kauṭ. III. 19, Manu (VIII. 285), Yāj. II. 227-229 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 55-59 prescribe graduated fines for the destruction of trees, plants and branches, flowers and fruits according to their usefulness and sanctity. The smṛtis made a distinction as regards punishments between crimes of violence and crimes due to negligence or mistake. For example, Manu VIII. 264 (=Matsya 227. 30) prescribes a fine of 500 paṇas for depriving a man of his house, garden or field by threats of violence, but only prescribes a fine of two hundred if a man deprives another of his house &c. by mistake.