Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c7.52

c7.52

Irrespective of caste, trustworthy men, who know their whole duty and who are free from covetousness are admissible as witnesses. How these moral qualifications are to be ascertained we are not told, but those who do not possess them are barred by Manu from the witness-box. Interested persons, friends, companions, enemies, those convicted of perjury, were not admissible as witnesses. So, too, those wholly dependent, men of notoriety, Dasyus, followers of forbidden occupations, men of the lowest castes, those deficient in organs of sense, lunatics, thieves, wrathful people, those who are extremely grieved, intoxicated, tormented by hunger or thirst or desire, or oppressed by fatigue. The king could not be summoned as a witness, nor ascetics, students, Śrotriyas, mechanics, actors, old men and infants. As a rule, women, twice-born men, Śūdras, and men of the lowest castes should give evidence for people of the same class. But any person who has inside knowledge of a murder case, or of acts done in the interior of a house or in a forest, could be called as a witness. On failure of regular witnesses, indeed, any one could be summoned to bear evidence, women, infants, pupils, relations, slaves or hired servants for example. Particularly in cases of violence, theft, adultery, defamation and assault; the competence of witnesses should not be examined too closely. It appears that witnesses did not merely report facts; they shared a little of the character of assessors. This is the hypothesis which best explains the following verse in Manu:—