[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Administrative System of the Marathas](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923) › c19.s9 # Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s9: 18. Panchayat in Criminal Cases Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s9 - **Language:** English ### 18. Panchayat in Criminal Cases ### [c19.s9.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.1) It does not seem that a Panchayat was so frequently resorted to as in civil cases; but that it was sometimes called to make enquiry into the facts of a criminal case as well as to pass judgment thereon, admits of no doubt. In the year 1760-61, Yeshvant Rao Kshirsagar of Kameri in Tarf Valve, of Prant Karhad, and two others were killed in consequence of a dispute about land revenue, and Kshirsagar's son complained against the murderers. We find that the Patil, Kulkarni and Rayats of the village were summoned to the Huzur for an enquiry into the case, and afterwards the compensation to be paid to the murdered man's son was settled by a Panchayat.²⁸ ### [c19.s9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.2) ²⁸ P. D., Vol. II, pp. 54-56. ### [c19.s9.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.3) "Upon that Shidoji bin Firangoji Kadam surnamed Ludge, half Patil of the village, Anaji Tukdev and Janardan Baburao Kulkarni and other Rayats were summoned to the Huzur. After proper enquiry and by the evidence of the Patil, Kulkarni, and the Rayats of the village, the charge of the three murders was proved against the aforesaid Sultanji and Baji. This dispute had to be disposed of, and according to the suggestion of the Panchayat it was ordered that out of the Inam lands of Sultanji and Baji Patil and the Mirasland of the Kunbi two houses and sixty-five bighas of lands with boundary duly described should be granted to the complainant as a hereditary Inam." This document not only shows that a Panchayat was appointed for trying homicides, but also that the relatives of the murdered person had to be compensated by the murderer. ### [c19.s9.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.4) 19. \*Fine according to the Resources of the Offender:\* ### [c19.s9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.5) Capital punishment in the days of Shahu Chhatrapati and Balaji Baji Rao seems to have been unknown. Murder and treason were punished with fine, confiscation of property, and imprisonment. The Maratha rulers seem to have realised that punishment was to be used as a corrective only and not to drive the offender to the extreme of despair and convert him into a sworn enemy of human society. That explains the queer but common prayer on the part of convicted offenders that the fine inflicted should not exceed their means; and why Government agreed not only to take the offenders' income into consideration while fixing the amount of fine, but also allowed them to pay the sum so fixed, by instalments. ### [c19.s9.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.6) "Morshet Bani, a resident of Peth Somvar was accused of murdering his wife. He was brought to the Huzur and examined. He was found guilty and he confessed that he had committed the crime. He also represented that a fine should be levied upon him, taking into consideration what his debtors owed to him and he should be absolved of his sin."⁹⁹ ### [c19.s9.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.7) ⁹⁹ P. D., Vol, II, p. 50. ### [c19.s9.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.8) Although the guilty had to pay a fine according to his means, the innocent, if accused, could not escape without any payment. Perhaps that people should suspect him was thought a sufficient offence. In 1752-53 Rupaji bin Rambhaji Mudtadak was accused of pelting Setya, the younger son of Jakhoji bin Setyaji Bhadag Vanjare, to death, and although his innocence was proved, he had to pay a Harki of Rs. 1,500.³⁰ Elphinstone rightly remarks, "the innocent might sometimes suffer, but the guilty could scarcely ever escape." ### [c19.s9.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.9) ³⁰ P. D., Vol. II, pp. 47-48. ### [c19.s9.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.10) When the government levied Harki upon the innocent, a false accuser could not expect mercy when detected. Fine was the usual punishment for such an offence. Three cases of false complaints are found in the Selections from Balaji Baji Rao's Diaries. In the first, Vithoji Jingar was fined Rs. 75 for bringing a false charge of theft against Govindaji Jagannath Deshmukh.³¹ In the second we find how Rama, a barber of Kasba Saswad, had brought a false charge of witchcraft against Subhanji Jingar and was fined Rs. 40. The Gunhagari as usual was "\*Jivan Mafik\*."³² In the third instance Soyraji of Fort Narayangad was fined Rs. 50 for accusing Maini, daughter of Rakhamaji Repal of adultery with Shivaji a washerman.³³ It is noteworthy that Maini proved her innocence by an ordeal by metal (that of drawing out a piece of metal from a potful of boiling oil). So in these three cases of false complaints, the fine varied from Rs. 40 to 75. Evidently the offenders were men of small means, for during the administration of the same Peshwa and only ten years later, we find that Hanmant Bhat, brother of the Pratinidhi, was fined Rs. 1,000 for giving false evidence.³⁴ This explains the policy of levying fine in proportion to the means of the offender. What would be a preventive in case of Rama, a barber, could not be a preventive in case of the Pratinidhi's brother. Therefore the latter had to pay a fine twenty-five times more than what was levied upon the former, although the offence committed by the barber might have been more serious. ### [c19.s9.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.11) ³¹ P. D., Vol. II, p. 61. ### [c19.s9.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.12) ³² \*Ibid\*, pp. 61-62 ### [c19.s9.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.13) ³³ Ibid, p. 63. ### [c19.s9.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.14) ³⁴ Ibid, p. 61. ### [c19.s9.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.15) 20. Witchcraft: ### [c19.s9.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.16) The offence of the barber mentioned above brings to our notice a crime that would certainly appear novel to us, witchcraft. Yet the European states had taken serious steps for its suppression. Witchcraft was made criminal in England by a statute of Elizabeth which had not been repealed till 1736. In the meantime no less than 30,000 men and women had lost their lives on the charge of selling their souls to the Devil. The most inhuman of these murders were those of Mrs. Hickes and her daughter a girl of nine in 1716. In Austria the law against witchcraft was suffered to disfigure the statute book as late as 1766. The Peshwas, however, thought fine and imprisonment sufficient penalty for intercourse with evil spirits. Only one case is recorded of capital punishment. But special measures were taken against prisoners convicted of witchcraft and sorcery. In 1775-76, Martand Joshi Rairikar was imprisoned in Killa Ghangad for practising sorcery, the warders in charge were instructed not to allow him to apply sacred ashes or sandal mark on his forehead or to perform the daily religious rites and to recite sacred hymns.³³ He was not to be allowed to take more than one meal per day, and he was required to prepare his own food. Sometimes the Peshwas went further, and took direct measures to deprive the supposed offender of his infernal power. In 1775-76 Moraji, a resident of Poona, was accused of killing a man through the instrumentality of evil spirits. His offence was proved beyond any doubt by the evidence of fifty of his caste people! They further prayed that in order to render his witchcraft ineffectual, two of his upper teeth should be extracted, and he should be made to drink water from a Chambhar's reservoir, and lastly he should be excommunicated. This pious prayer was, for public safety, granted; and further, as the persecuted wizard had threatened to practise witchery against his caste people through Berads and Mangs, if he was excommunicated, the Peshwa ordered him to be imprisoned in the fort of Kohaj and there kept under strict guard.³⁶ ### [c19.s9.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.17) ³³ P. D., Vol. VIII, pp. 114-115. ### [c19.s9.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.18) ³⁶ P. D., Vol. VIII, p. 115. ### [c19.s9.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.19) When a man was charged with causing harm to others by sorcery and witchcraft, he was generally fined and ordered to recall the evil spirits under his commands. Public opinion and common suspicion were regarded as sufficient proofs³⁷ of his offence. Only in one case was a man banished on the charge of witchcraft. So anxious was the Peshwa to save the person and property of his subjects from the infernal influence of the evil spirits in the service of the sorcerers and wizards that two officers were appointed to make a thorough enquiry about the sorcerers in the Talukas Anjanvel, Suvarndurg, Ratnagiri, Vijayadurg, Devgad and Saudal in the year 1774-75. The first officer was asked to visit the villages of Talukas Anjanvel and Suvarndurg, and he got two Karkuns and six peons to assist him, and he was also authorised to employ five more peons if necessary. The second officer was appointed on an annual salary of Rs. 350 and an additional allowance of Rs. 261 for Karkuns and peons and stationery. He was to levy fine on the wizards when detected, but here also the principle laid down was that the amount of fine should not be exorbitant. The document clearly states that "in the instructions about enquiry framed by the Sarsubha the amount of fine prescribed was from Rs. 25 to Rs. 50. But the Rayats of the Konkan were poor and the Sarsubha wrote a letter in the year San Salas that taxes and fine should not be insisted on. Therefore you should fix Gunhagari (fine) according to their means."³⁸ Even highly placed people often suffered for suspected intercourse with the evil spirits. A Kashmiri general in the Sindhia's employ was disgraced on this account in the early years of the 19th century. ### [c19.s9.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.20) ³⁷ The published documents do not tell us how wizards were detected in the Peshwa's dominions. A curious mode of trying witches in Behar has been described, in the Annual Asiatic Register (1801), Tracts, pp. 91-92. Jenkins says that the method of detecting witches by the Nagpur Government was as follows: "The usual test by which witches are discovered, is that of plunging them, tied up in a bag, into the water; if they sink, they are innocent, if they swim, guilty; and they are punished sometimes with death, at others their teeth are drawn; they are made to drink the water in which the skins of dead animals have been immersed, are beat with twigs of a particular bush, supposed to have peculiar properties and are turned out of their caste, and sometimes out of the village." Jenkins' Report, p. 60. ### [c19.s9.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.21) ³⁸ P. D., Vol. VIII, pp. 112-114. ### [c19.s9.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.22) 21. \*Adultery\*: ### [c19.s9.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.23) Here we shall take notice of another offence, adultery; the punishment being so far as the female offenders were concerned, slavery and penal servitude. They were, however, let off if any of their relations offered to stand surety for their future good conduct. In 1741-42 one such female slave was released on the application of her husband who offered to replace her by another slave.³⁹ In 1754-55 a Koli woman arrested on a charge of adultery was saved from the ignominy of a slave's life on the application of her caste people, but she had to pay a fine of Rs. 50.⁴⁰ ### [c19.s9.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.24) ³⁹ P. D., Vol. I, p. 214. ### [c19.s9.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.25) ⁴⁰ P. D., Vol. II, p. 67. ### [c19.s9.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.26) In 1785-86 Janaki Lagdin, an adulteress, then undergoing penal servitude at fort Visapur, was released on her father standing surety for her good conduct.⁴¹ In one case we find that mutilation was substituted for slavery. In 1781-82 Ahili, wife of Janoji Davra of Dholwad in Prant Junnar committed adultery with Devji Khandoji Chinchvada. Devji was fined and Ahili got her liberty at the loss of her nose.⁴² ### [c19.s9.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.27) ⁴¹ P. D., Vol. VIII, p. 108. ### [c19.s9.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.28) ⁴² P. D., Vol. VIII, p. 108. ### [c19.s9.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.29) Girls thus condemned to slavery had to work hard in fortresses. Generally they had to do building work. But sometimes they were sold off like ordinary articles of sale. A Brahman Gangadhar Bhat Karve bought a female convict for Rs. 30 only in 1755-56.⁴³ The male offenders on the other hand were generally let off with a fine, and sometimes after a term of imprisonment. ### [c19.s9.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9.30) ⁴³ P. D., Vol. II, p. 68. ## Linked texts (1) - [Selections from the Peshwa Daftar](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.maratha.daftar.peshwa-daftar) — Marathi --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s9) · Pramāṇa