History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.61

v5.c71.s1.61

The Mit on *Yāj.* III. 227 and 243 (quoting verses from Paithīnasi) explains all these at length. For the definition of *anugrāhaka* it relies on a verse of Manu 'Where many persons are armed and have a common purpose in view, if even one of them kills a person, all of them are guilty of murder', which is very much like sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This distinction into several degrees of killers is an ancient one and is based on Āp Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 1-2 'He who³⁸ instigates, he who approves, and he who commits an act—these share its results in heaven and hell; but he amongst these who contributes most to the accomplishment of the act obtains a greater share of the results'. A *nuraffin*³⁹ is defined by Mit. as one that angers another (who is a brāhmaṇa) by rebuking or beating or depriving him of wealth and the like and in whose presence and on account of whom the brāhmaṇa that is angered kills himself. The Mit. quotes a verse of Viṣṇu and also another verse (without name) on this point. If a person kills a brāhmaṇa boy whose *upanayana* had not been performed he was yet regarded as guilty of brāhmaṇa murder.⁴⁰ The Sāmavidhāna Br. I. 7. 5, Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 24. 6-9), Vas. 20. 34, Manu XI. 87, Yāj. III. 251 hold that killing even a kṣatriya or vaiśya who had studied the Veda or had been initiated for a soma sacrifice rendered the killer guilty of *brahmahatyā*, as also the killing of the foetus (of brāhmaṇa parents) whose sex was unknown and of a woman who was an ātreyī.⁴¹ Killing a brāhmaṇa woman other than an ātreyī or other than the wife of a sacrificer engaged in a soma sacrifice was only an upapātaka, as Manu (XI. 66) and Yāj. (III. 236) lay down. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 254 says that no prāyaścitta can expiate the sin of killing a woman intentionally. In the case of the three varṇas other than that of brāhmaṇa some smṛtis like that of Cyavana⁴² laid down other mahāpātakas in addition to the five, viz. punishing one who should not be punished and fleeing from the battle-field are additional *mahāpātakas* for kṣatriyas, employing false balances and weights for vaiśyas, the selling of flesh, injuring a brāhmaṇa, sexual intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman, the drinking of the milk of a kapilā (dark-brown) cow in the case of śūdras. If a brāhmaṇa or any other human being or a cow died while a competent doctor was administering treatment to them by means of drugs, oils or food, or cauterization by cutting or by opening a vein the medical man incurred no sin ⁴³ But if a quack pretending to know medicine administered such treatment and death followed, Yāj. II. 242 prescribed various punishments. If a brāhmaṇa administers moderate corporal punishment to his son, pupil or wife for some fault and the son or pupil or wife suddenly dies he incurs no sin, according to the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa and the Agnipurāṇa.⁴⁴ Gautama (II 48-50), Āp. Dh S I 2 8. 29-30, Manu VIII. 299-300 (=Matsyapurāṇa 227. 152-154), Viṣṇu Dh. S 71 81-82, Nārada (abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā 13-14) lay down that the punishment should be administered with a rope or bamboo slip on the back (but never on the head or chest) and Manu (VIII 300) provides that if these restrictions were violated the punisher would incur the same guilt or punishment as a thief. Vide H. of Dh. vol II. pp 362-363 for this topic