History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.257.3

v5.c71.s1.257.3

241 and 242 provide that a brāhmaṇa guilty of these grave sins unintentionally may be punished with the middle amercement (if he himself be possessed of good qualities) but if he was guilty of the grave sins committed intentionally he should be banished from the kingdom being allowed to take with him his wealth and paraphernalia; while persons other than brāhmaṇas when guilty of grave sins unintentionally committed were to be deprived of all their wealth and if guilty intentionally they were to be sentenced to death. These verses show that though prāyaścitta be performed persons guilty of grave sins were liable to undergo punishment and if no penance was performed then they were liable to branding and also fines etc Manu XI. 56 provides that bearing false witness is similar to the drinking of *surā* and Manu XI. 57 and Yāj. III. 230 hold that misappropriation of a deposit is like the theft of gold Viṣṇu Dh. S (V 169) provides that the misappropriator of a deposit was to be made to return the deposit or its price with interest and was to be punished like a thief by the king and V 179 that a false witness had all his property confiscated. These instances establish that both fines by the king (i. e rāja-daṇḍa) and penances prescribed by the assembly of learned men (i. e pariṣaddaṇḍa or daiva daṇḍa) had to be undergone by those guilty of some grave sins that were also looked upon as crimes In some cases the penance and the punishment were the same For example, Gaut 23 10–11, Vas.