Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c7.49

c7.49

source of litigation. If the inspection of various marks such as tanks, wells, cisterns, fountains and temples, failed to furnish decisive evidence, the case had to depend on the testimony of witnesses. These must be examined "in the presence of the crowd of the villagers and also of the two litigants. As they, being questioned, unanimously decide, even so he (the king) shall record the boundary." If no witnesses were available, the case should be left to the decision of people from four neighbouring villages.¹ Manu further allows that on certain occasions the law may be taken in one's own hand. A creditor, for example, may recover his debt by artful management or even by force. He "must not be blamed by the king" for retaking what is his own.² It need hardly be remarked that self-defence justified the employment of any means. The king must himself preside over the court, but he must always be assisted by Brāhmaṇas and learned councillors. In court, the king must maintain a dignified demeanour but he should not be ostentatious in his dress or ornaments. Seated or standing, he should raise his right arm and "examine the business of suitors." In the absence of the king, a learned Brāhmaṇa should act as judge, assisted by three councillors. Then, there is seen the court of the four-faced Brahman. It is never for Śūdras to interpret the law. A king who looks on while a Śūdra pronounces the sentence will find his realm sinking into misfortunes like a cow into a quagmire. The judges must try to find out the truth by inferences as a hunter traces the lair of a wounded deer by the drops of blood. "When engaged in judicial proceedings he must pay full attention to the truth, to the object, to himself, next to the witnesses, to the place, to the time and to the aspect."