24 Steya

CHAPTER XXIV

STEYA (theft).

In the Rg. there is frequent mention of taskara, stena and tāyu. In Rg. VI. 28. 3 the sage 948 says ‘may the cows not disappear from us, may a thief not injure them! In Rg. VIII. 29. 6 it is said “Pūṣan guards the ways and knows of concealed treasures as a thief does! From Rg. X. 4.6 it appears that thieves were desperate and bound people with ropes and (from Rg. I. 191. 5 ) that thieves (taskaras ) appeared at night. Tāyu (thief) occurs in Rg. I. 50.2, IV. 38. 5, VI. 12. 5 and is an Indo-Iranian word. The word ‘stena’occurs in Rg. VI. 28.7 and means ‘one who is a cattle-lifter’. Rg. VIII. 67. 14 indicates that a stena was bound with ropes (when caught). In Rg. VII. 55. 3 the dog is asked to run after a stena and a taskara, the first being probably a thief (who secretly carries away pro perty) and the second a thief who openly carries it away. In the Vāj. 9484 S. XI. 79 (=Tai. S. IV. 1.10.2) we have the malimlu in addition to stena and laskaru. Atharvaveda IV, 3 contains charms against wolves, tigers and thieves (taskaras ).

Steya is distinguished from sāhasa in Manu VIII. 332, Kaut. III. 17, Nār. XVII. 12 and other works as stated under sahasa below. Kāt. 810 defines 9486 it as ‘depriving a man of his wealth either clandestinely or openly and either by night or by day’. Nār. XVII. 17 defines it as ‘deprivation of wealth by various means from people that are asleep, careless or intoxicated’. It may be of three kinds according to the value of the thing stolen viz. trifling (when earthen-ware, seats, cots, wood, hides, grass, beans in pods or cooked food is stolen) or middling (when the theft relates to clothes except silken

948. ,

har i arafast mafuct quali F. VI. 28. 3; qu per: Te tout que fareftare il F. VIII. 29, 6; cesta TRT Ta m iroquang 1. X. 4, 6 (explained in a III. 14).

948. rag af : TARTU I

am aurat ***t: #27. . XI. 79. The com. on Tai. S. explains : FeaT: Thur: तस्कराः प्रकटचोराः अतिप्रकटा निर्भया मामेषु बन्दिकरा: मलिम्लुवः।

1948b.

Ei a ferrara1 9 84 of fire often 79T, 810 g. by PTTUTT VI. 9, p. 224. ·

520

(Vol.

ones, animals except cows and bulls, metals except gold, rice and barley ), grave or high ( when gold, jewels, silken cloth, women, men, cattle, elephants, horses and the wealth of brahmanas or temples is stolen). Vide Nār. XVII. 13-16 and Yāj. II. 275. Thieves are either prakūśa (open or patent) or aprakāśa (secret) acc. to Manu IX, 256, Br. 949 (8. B. E. 33 p. 359 V.2). Acc. to Manu IX. 258-260, Nār. ( parisista 2-3) and Br. (8. B. E. 33 p. 360 verses 3-4) patent thieves are traders who employ false weights and balances, gamblers, quacks, bribers of sabhyas, prostitutes, those who profess to arbitrate, those who manufacture imitation articles, those who subsist by progno sticating good fortune or portents or by magic or palmistry, false witnesses &c. Manu (IX. 261-266) states that in order to find out such thieves the king should employ spies in various disguises at various places such as meeting halls, refreshment rooms, brothels, wineshops, theatres &c. The concealed thieves are those who move about with tools for house-breaking without being observed and whose residence is not known; they are principally 950 of nine kinds viz. one who quietly relieves a man of his money when the latter is attending to something else, a house-breaker, a highway robber (who robs travellers ), a cut-purse, one who steals (or kidnaps ) a woman or a man, cattle, horses and other animals. Yāj. II. 266-268 and Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 9-12) indicate the various ways in which thieves may be detected and caught viz. by the (police ) officers recovering a part of the booty from a man or by tracing foot-steps, or by seizing one who has been ofton found to be a thief, or by finding out that the man suspected cannot state his place of residence; and they recommend that on suspicion others may be caught, if on being questioned they attempt to conceal their caste or name or if they are found addicted to gambling, wine and women or if their mouth becomes dry or their voice changes or if they spend lavishly though they have no ostensible means of earning, or those who sell lost or second-hand goods or who move about in disguise or who are found making inquiries about others’ houses

949. TAIP ATTATOTT forum OT: FUT: 1 ANTAR Purrt oforurer FEWUT T.9. by P . II. p. 317, 39. . p. 386.

950. Teren in gruputa ii fieri poterit ad mo frus: a: Hari q. by . II. . 318, *. 4. p. 385. '

MI)

Caution against punishing on suspicion

521

or wealth. The Mit, on Yāj. 951 II. 268 quotes Nār. and gives the warning that the king must carefully examine whether the man caught is really the thief and should not convict merely on suspicion, since even an innocent man may have stolen property near him or betray some of the signs noted above. When pro perty alleged to be stolen is found with a man, it may be that the articles came to his hands from another’s hand or he may have taken it up when it lay unclaimed on the ground or he may have taken it as a thief; liars often have the appearance of honest men and vice versa (Nar. I. 71)952. Nārada’s dictum (I. 42) that one who is not a thief may be held to be a thief as in the case of Mandavya has already been quoted above (p. 357n. 549 ). Vide Manu IX, 270 ( = Matsya 227.166) cited on p. 355 above. When a person is seized on suspicion of being a thief he could not be acquitted on his mere denial of the offence. He had to prove innocence by ordinary evidence (such as proof that he was elsewhere when the theft was committed) or ordeals (Yāj. II. 269). The general rule about the punishment of patent thieves was that the punishment was to be proportionate to the lightness or gravity of the crime and not to their wealth ( Vyāsa ) 953. Br. (S. B. E. 33 p. 361 verses 10 ff) quoted in Par. M. III. pp. 439-440 and V. P. pp. 387-88 prescribes various punishments for parti cular kinds of patent thieves e. g. sabhyas giving wrong deci sions (for bribes) or those who deceive by betraying the trust imposed in them are to be banished. Manu IX. 292 ( = Matsya 207. 184-185) holds that the goldsmith is the worst of all deceitful persons ( kantakas) and if he is found committing fraud his limbs should be cut off bit by bit.

As regards the concealed thieves the texts lay down special rules. Nār. XVII. 21 extends to theft of the three kinds men tioned above the same punishments that are awarded in the three kinds of sahasa. Manu VIII. 323 prescribes death sentence for kidnapping men of good family and particularly women

951. SPYERTETTH TAY aun ATTESTATNHH कारया. acc. to अपराकp. 841, वि. र. p. 337. मिता. on या. II. 268 and परा. मा. III. p. 437 ascribe it to नारद: The मिता. remarks: न पुनलिङ्गदर्शनमात्रेण चौरनिर्णय कुर्यात् । अचौरस्यापि लोत्रादिचौर्यलिङ्गसम्बन्धसम्भवात् ।

952. 39: FYTIT: FEAT THEYRAT:1 grua fafter par ofteroru FTTE I, 71; in the stage 111. 65-66 this very verse occurs with the variation that सभ्य and असभ्य are substituted for सत्य and असत्य.

953. HATUT FEATU* atq5678:1 er forretning Fasha Farhauri TUTA q. by Fyfar. II. p. 317, 14. 4. p. 387.

66522

[ Vol.

and for theft of costly jewels; while Vyasa prescribes death by burning on red-hot iron bed for kidnapping women and mutilation of hands and feet for kidnapping a man. Yaj. Il. 273 provides impalement for those who confine others as captives, for those who steal horses and elephants and who strike others with violence, while Manu IX. 280 prescribes death for those who break royal store-houses and armoury, the inner shrine in a temple and who steal horses, chariots and elephants. For him who commits theft by housebreaking at night Manu (IX. 276 ) and Bṭ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 361, verse 17 ) provide impalement 954 after cutting off his hands. Yāj. II. 274, Manu IX. 277, Vigpu Dh. S. V. 136 prescribe for the cut-purse the punishment of the cutting of the thumb and index finger for the first offence, the cutting of the hand and foot if it is the second offence and death if he repeats the same offence a third time. Not only was the thief made to undergo punishment but he was also liable to make good the loss of property to the person robbed ( Manu VIII. 320, Yāj. II. 270, Vignu Dh. S. V. 89, Nār, parisista 21 ). According to Nār. (parisista 22-24) for thefts of articles of small value the fine was five times their price, while Manu (VIII. 326-329 ) said it was twice as much as the price. Gaut. XII. 12-14,955 Manu VIII. 337-338, Nār. (parisista 51-52 ) lay down that the fine for theft is higher in the case of the higher castes i. e. if the sūdra thief is fined eight times of the value of the article stolen, the vaisya, ksatriya and brāhmaṇa thieves were respectively fined 16, 32 and 64 times the price of the article, as each is deemed to know better owing to his higher status and culture. Manu VIII. 380 lays down the general rule that a brāhmaṇa offender was not to be killed whatever the offence might be but he was to be banished from the country allowing him to take with him all his wealth. But there were other provisions and exceptions also. Kāt.956 ( 823 ) states that

954. fue 1 TaT YATWERHEITE. g. by 47. 4. p. 388.

955. अटापाथं स्तेयकिल्बिर्ष शूखस्य । द्विगुणोतराणीतरेषां प्रतिवर्णम् । विदुषोऽतिक्रमे que T IM. XII. 12–14.

956. #4: Fu Pate: Friaat THE NATATATE yurage गर्हितम् । सहोढमसहोदं वा तयागमितसाहसम् । संगण चिहमावेष सर्वस्वैर्विषयोजयेत् । अयासन्दानगुप्ताश्च मन्दभत्ता पलान्विताः । कुर्युः कर्माणि वृपतेरामस्योरिति कौशिकः कात्या. 823-825 q. by ra. T. p. 332, a. f. p. 92, 39 p. 849 (last two verses). अत्र कात्यायनवाक्ये वृत्तस्वाध्यायवतः प्रवासनं, तथएन्यस्य धनवतः सर्वस्वहरण, निर्धनस्य तु quay phim am that I a. 6. p. 332; 397 reads

EUWAR, which seems to mean that his guilt and the signs whereby it was determined should be proclaimed to the public,

II 1

Views on punishment of thieves

523

the school of the Mānavas declared that thieves caught with the stolen things on them should be at once banished but that the school of Gautama disapproved of this mode, since it is condemned because it entails loss ( reduction) of people in the country. The V. R. p. 332 explains this verse as referring to a learned brāhmana. Two more verses of Kāt. (824-825 ) are quoted by V. R. P. 332 and V. C. p. 92 the first of which provides that a brāhmaṇa who is not learned whether caught with booty or not should be branded (with the appropriate signs) and deprived of all his property, provided his guilt is brought home with certainty and the second provides that a brāhmana thief who is neither learned nor rich but is strongly built should be kept under guard with fetters on his feet, should be fed on meagre food and made to do hard labour for the king till his death. Gaut. XII. 46-48, Nār. ( parisista 13-14), Manu IX. 271 and 278, Kāt. (827) hold that the punishment for those who knowingly give food, fire ( when they feel cold ), water or asylum to thieves or who receive or purchase stolen property or who conceal them are to be punished like the thieves themselves. 957 Yāj. II. 276 prescribes the highest amercement for any one who knowingly gives help to a thief or murderer in the above ways or by directions or by supplying tools or money wherewith to go to a place for committing the offence.

In certain cases a person could take without being liable to be punished as a thief certain things belonging to another even if he had not the latter’s permission. Gaut. XII. 958 25, Manu VIII. 339 ( = Matsya 227, 112-113), Yaj. II. 166 allow a person of the three higher castes to take grass, fuel-sticks, flowers of trees and plants for feeding cows and for the worship of fire from any place as if they belonged to himself and also fruits of trees that were not enclosed. In such cases he would not be liable to a fine nor does he incur sin ( Kullūka on Manu VIII. 339). A smrti passage stating that if a man takes

957. Compare sec. 212 (about harbouring an offender) and, 411 (on receiving stolen property) of the” I. P. C.

958, sau quarrafrat goutros prarara fa unft MATTI ITI. XII. 25. 39 p. 773 remarks that this is so only when there is difficulty in getting these (soft) H ongaar is geri यदि वा फलम् । अनापुच्छन्हि गृहानो हस्तच्छेदनमहति। इति तद द्विजण्यतिरिक्तविषयमनाप

TG geurant a lai prap on af. II. 166; HOTTE p. 774 says तदनापतशूद्रादिविषयम् ।

524

(Vol.

grass or fuel or flowers or fruits without permission deserves to have his hand cut off is explained by the Mit. (on Yāj. 166 ), Aparārka p. 774 and others as meant to apply to persons other than dvijas or as meant to refer to a case where they are taken by a person who has really no difficulty in securing these or where these are not taken for the use of cows or for worship. This matter had been a subject of discussion from ancient times. Ap. Dh. S.959 (I. 10. 28. 1–5) contains a discussion from which it appears that Kautsa, Harita, Kāṇva and Puṣkarasādi were of the opinion that whatever (however trifling or in whatever circumstances ) a man took without the consent of the owner, he became a thief; that Vārsyāyani held that there were exceptions to this rule viz. that owners should not forbid the taking (of a small quantity of ) grain in pods (such as mudga or mūṣa) or grass for bulls yoked to carts, but that if large quantities even of these were taken there would be theft. Sānti 165. 11-13, Manu XI. 16-18 and Yāj. III. 43 state that when a brāhmaṇa or other person has fasted for three days because he has had no grain with him, he may on the 4th day take grain for one day’s meal from any where he can get, whether from a threshing floor or from a field or a house, and that if the owner questioned he should declare to him the reason, but a person of a lower caste should not in this way take grain belonging to one of a higher caste, unless the latter pursues a sinful course or does not perform the duties of his caste. Vyāsa quoted by Sm. C. I. p. 175 allows a man to commit even theft, when he is in distress for food, first from a person of a lower caste, then from one of the same caste and then from one of a higher caste. Manu VIII. 341 ( = Matsya 227, 110, 114), Nār. ( prakirṇaka 39 ), Saṅkha and Kāt. (822A ) state that a traveller whose food has run out may take from another’s land without being liable to punishment two sugarcane stalks, two mūlakas (esculent roots ), two cucumbers or melons, five mangoes or promegranate fruit

959, TUT 01 Truftayar ATT Fantaiat hetrat que va पुष्करसादी । सम्स्यपादाः परपरिग्रहेविति वार्ष्यायणिः । शम्योषा युग्यधासो म स्वामिनः ofta i

s egment of caragraf #: 1 3979. 4. . I. 10. 28, 1-5.

960. WTE MI Ford FIE HATA: Istarateur FTEATER TAPETTI VTT Q. by Fift. I. p. 175; p erqr 141. 395 1968 ……farate # top: 1 विषेण प्राणरक्षार्थ कर्तव्यमिति निश्रयः।

III]

Sāhasa (crimes of violence)

525

and a handful of dates and of such corn as rice, wheat, gram &c.961

Sahasa (crimes of violence). Manu VIII. 332, Kaut. III. 17, Nar. XVII. 1, Yaj. II. 230, Kat. (795-796) define sahasa962 as any act which is done with violence in defiance of or in spite of the presence of royal officers or guards or people. The word sahasa is a derivative from ‘sahas’ meaning ‘force’ (Nar. XVII. 1). Sometimes it is distinguished from theft (as in Manu VIII. 332, Kaut. III. 17 and Nar. XVII. 12) by saying that theft consists in depriving a person of his wealth stealthily (without force), while in gāhasa there is the use of force or violence963. Nar. XVII.2 and Br. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 359 verse 1) state that sāhasa 964 is of four kinds viz. manslaughter, theft, violence to the wives of others, and the two kinds of pāruṣya (treated as one head). Although these topics can be compre hended under sāhasa, they are generally dealt with separately in the smrtis and digests as a matter of convenience and in order to provide heavier punishment for crimes of violence 965, since a man guilty of a crime of violence is a worse ginner than one guilty of abuse, theft or assault (Manu VIII. 345 and

Mit. on Yaj. II. 230) and Manu VIII. 244 enjoins upon the king not to tolerate for a moment a man guilty of violence. The

961. तिलमुन्माषयवगोधूमादीनां सस्यमुष्टिग्रहणेषु न दोषः पथिकानाम् । श. by स्मृतिच. I. p. 176: वपुषे वारुके हेतु पञ्चानं पश्चदादिमम् । खजूरबदादीना मुष्टिं गृहम दुण्यति । वृह. and कात्या. acc. to गृह. र. p. 520; चणकवीहिगोधूमयवानां मुद्रमाषयोः । अनिषिद्धैग्रहीतष्यो मुष्टिरेकः पथि स्थितैः ॥ q. by भिता. on या. II. 275.

962. स्यात्साहसं त्वन्धयवत् प्रसभ कर्म यस्कृतम् । निरन्वयं भवेत्स्तेयं हत्वापण्ययते च यत् । मनु. VIII. 332 ; साहसमन्वयवत् प्रसभकर्म । निरन्वये स्तेयमपव्ययने च । अर्थशास्त्र III. 17; सहसा कियते कर्म यत्किञ्चिद्धलदर्पितः । तत्साहसमिति प्रोक्तं सहो बलमिहोच्यते ॥ भारद XVII. 1; सहसा यत्कृतं कर्म तत्साहसमुदाहृतम् । सान्वयस्त्वपहारो यः प्रसह हरणं च यत् । साहसं च भवेदेवं स्तेयमुक्त विनिलवे ॥ कात्या. 795-796 q. by स. वि. pp. 451, 457. स्मृतिच. II. p. 316 and वि. र. p. 287 (the last two quote 796 only). स्मृतिच. II. 316 explains: अन्वयो रक्षणकालक्रममासपालकनरनैरन्तर्य, तस्मिन्सति योऽपहारः स सान्वयोऽपहारः .

963. तस्यैव भेदः स्तेयं स्याद्विशेषस्तत्र दृश्यते । आधिः साहसमाक्रम्य स्सेयमाधि छलेन तु ॥ नारद XVII. 12. व्य..प. p. 385 explains: आधिः पीडा धनापहरणादि. द्वारा आक्रम्य प्रसय परस्य क्रियमाण: केशः साहसरूप स्नेयम् । छलेन क्रियमाणः आधिः केवलस्तेयमित्यर्थः .

964. मनुण्यमारणं चौर्य परदाराभिमर्शनम् । पारुण्यमुभयं चेति साहसं स्यानचतुर्विधम् । अह.. by स्मृतिच. II. p. 312, व्य. प्र. p. 392.

965. तविद साहसं चौर्यवाग्दण्डपारुण्यत्रीसंग्रहणेषु ज्यासक्तमपि बलवर्षावष्टम्भो पाधितो भियते इति दण्डातिरेकार्थ पृथगभिधानम् । मिता. on या. II. 230.

526

[Vol.

V. May, (text p. 2) says that in differentiating steya from sāhasa the maxim of cows’ and ‘bulls’ is applicable 966.

Sāhasa is divided by Nār. XVII. 3-6 and Br. (S. B. F. 33 p. 363 verse 24) into three varieties, viz. the lowest ( destruction, abuse and trampling of fruits, roots, water, agricultural imple ments), middling (destruction &c. of clothes, food and drink, household utensils), highest (killing with weapons or poison, violence to others’ wives and whatever causes pain to sentient beings). These three kinds are respectively punished with the three kinds of punishments described above (pp. 393-94). The principal crimes included under sāhasa in its narrow sense are homicide, rape and robbery. Rape will be dealt with under strisangrahaṇa. Br. 967 states the general rule that one guilty of murder by violence should be punished with death and not with fines (S. B. E 33 p. 363 v. 29). To this the brāhmaṇa offender was an exception (Manu IX. 241 ), who was only to be banished. Manu IX. 242 introduces another exception viz. persong other than brāhmaṇas when guilty of the great sins (specified in IX. 235) through negligence should be only deprived of all their property but if they murder a man inten tionally then only are they to be sentenced to death. Manu IX. 232 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 9-11 provide the punishment of death for those who fabricate false royal edicts, or who tamper with the loyalty of the elements of the State or who kill women, children and brāhmaṇas. Baud. Dh. $. I. 10. 20-21, Bṛ. and Vyāsa prescribe 968 that if a brāhmaṇa is killed by a kṣatriya, vaisya or śūdra, the king should sentence

966, TEIFOrmeargegront at yun na IT I TT. Ha p. 2. When a man says a aprofunt taciau tbe separate mention of balivardas (bulls) that can be included under the word *gāvaḥ’ is due to the fact that bulls, being more intractable tban cows, special attention must be paid to manage them. 3 p. 1048 (on Yāj. III. 230) employs the same maxim in a similar connection narraria atro equRETT: ‘.

967. FTTH

T H TUMEME: A: leantuit : FIEST PY9T: TET: Il . q. by fat. f. p 105. The word ‘vadba’ has two senses, (1) death and (2) corporal punishment. Here y means death.

968. क्षत्रियादीनां पाह्मणवधे वधः सर्वस्वहरणं च तेषामेव तुल्यापकृष्टषधे यथावल. AUTOVET VETOUCE1*. y. I. 10. 20-21: T Q R 777 FHET T FUTTI grungea n : ETF . by Furta. II. 312 and T. 9. p. 394 ; **Trepto altgart: I TINT Ari Traser: fafaua

# T. 4. by Fr . p. 312 and 24. 4. p. 394. a. re. p. 105 reads Trim Heave Apre7: and explains #ray: foto , rhett T: H T Ferreran STORITETE

THI)

Sentence of death

527

the offender to death in various ways and confiscate all his property, but if a man kills another of his own caste or of a lower caste then the king may punish the offender with some punishment appropriate to the crime and the strength of the offender. In IV. 11 Kaut. provides sentences of death in various ways for murder following ancient sāstras, but remarks that if murderers have not been guilty of cruelty they should simply be sentenced to death without torture or the like 99. One special rule deserves notice. Gaut. 22. 12, Ap. Dh, S. I 9, 24 6-9, Manu XI. 87, Vas. 20. 34, Yāj. III. 251 prescribe the same prāyaścitta for murdering a brāhmaṇa woman who is an ātreyi as for one who kills a brāhmaṇa male. The different meanings of ‘atreyi’ given from ancient times are noted below 970, Texts

969. Vā recedat: TUET RETEAarauerat a at tu: 9694: Fa: # BUITE IV. 11, last verse.

970. gadaint. 22 12 ; 31** FONTE I 3919. 4. I. 9. 24. 9. 3rd is variously explained. The word occurs as early as the Sat. Br. I. 4, 5, 13 where in explaining why the offerings to Prajāpati are made in a low tone a legend about the goddess ‘Vāc’ is narrated and it is said that in having sexual intercourse with an ātreyi, a man incurs sin’ (FACETTITYT Tea Teat). Here the word appears to mean a woman who is in her monthly illness. Vas. ( 20. 35-36) defines ātreyi as a woman who has taken the purificatory bath on the 4th day after her monthly illness begins and derives the word from अत्र ‘आत्रयों वक्ष्यामो रजस्वलामृतस्नातामात्रामाहः । अत्र राज्यदपत्यं भवतीति । Vasistba either cites or summarises a Vedic passage ( as stated by Viśvarūpa) which means ‘here (i. e. in the womb of this woman) a child is to come’. In SBE vol. 14 p. 107 the same is translated as if the husband approaches her at that time) he will have offspring’. But this is not correct. “Eṣyat’ qualifies ‘apatyam’ and is not in the masculine. Vas. derives the word from 37 and the root . Viṣṇu Dh, S. 36.1 and 50.9 appear to hold that ātreyi means a woman of the Atrigotra. Haradatta on both Gaut. and Ap. explains ātreyi as Vasistha does and states that others interpreted it as ‘अत्रिगोत्रा on या. III. 251 (aura : ) fase explains wist as a woman within 16 days from the beginning of the monthly illness and quotes af 20.36 and also says ‘आत्रेयीं अधिगोवर्णयन्ति । तदपि युक्तमेव । तथा चाम्नायः ततोत्रिः सम्बभूवेत्युक्त्वा THECAECAT

A T ATE: a paragrega a 11. From Sabara on Jai. VI. 1. 7 it appears that some derived the word as ‘99 $174 faun begriters, while Sabara himself preferred the meaning 2 017 and regarded the probibition to kill an ātreyi as simply meant for praising that gotra ‘तथा गोत्रमशसार्थ आनेय्या अवधसकीर्तनम् । न चापनसत्या आत्रेयी । गोत्र UTETI #18 gerai are TEC : 1 autat pe afaa vingi 3*

razteni (on , VI. 1. 9). To quoted by ou. #T. II. 1 p. 103 gives two meanings ‘जन्मप्रभृति संस्कार संस्कता ब्रह्मचर्यया। गर्भिणी वाध वा या स्यातामात्रेयीं Apartment, The Hatets gives unitat as a synonym of MT.

A

528

( Vol.

like Ap. I. 9. 24. 1-5, Gaut. XXII prescribe different praye soittas for murder depending upon the castes and gexes of the murderer and the murdered. These will be briefly dealt with under prāyascitta later on. In certain cases acc. to Manu VIII. 291-292, Yāj. II. 298–299, Kaut. IV. 13, though death or injury to persons or loss of property results, no punishment was pres cribed viz, when the nose-string of bulls yoked to a cart snaps, when the yoke breaks, when the cart swerves on one side owing to the unevenness of the ground, when the axle or wheel breaks or when the leather thongs with which the several parts of the cart are tied give way, or when the rope cast round the necks of bulls or the reins break or when in spite of the driver loudly calling upon a person to move aside from the way an accident occurs. But Manu VIII. 293, 294 (=Matsya 227, 95-96) pro vide that where through the want of skill of the driver know ingly engaged by a master the cart is overturned and injury is caused, the master should be fined 200 paṇas, but if the driver employed be known to be skilful, then when injury is caused the driver should be fined (and not the employer). Further if the driver, though seeing that the road is blocked by cattle or other carts, rashly drives and kills men and animals he should be punished (Manu VII. 295). It is stated by Nār. (pārusya 32, S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 212) that the father is not liable for his son’s offence, nor is the owner of a horse, dog or ape liable to punishment (for injury caused by any of these ) provided they are not set up (to do harm) by the owner. If a driver kills a man by rash or negligent driving he is to be punished like a thief; if he kills any one of the larger aninals (such as a cow, a horse, a camel or elephant) the punishment would be half of the preceding; if he kills one of the inferior animals, the fine would be two hundred. Kaut. III. 19, Manu (VIII. 285), Yaj. II. 227-229 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 55-59 prescribe graduated fines for the destruction of trees, plants and branches, flowers and fruits according to their usefulness and sanctity. The gmptis made a distinction as regards punishments between orimnes of violence and crimes due to negligence or mistake. For example, Manu VIII. 264 ( =Matsya 227. 30 ) prescribes a fine of 500 paṇas for depriving a man of his house, garden or Beld by threats of violence, but only prescribes a fine of two hundred if a man depripas another of his house &o. by mistake.

ILI )

Punishment for abettors

$29

Various rules were laid down about inciters or abettors. Yaj. L. 231 and Kanṭ971. III. 17 prescribe for the man who incites another to crimes of violence double the punishment to be inflicted on the perpetrator himself and four times for one who incites another by. assuring him ‘I shall give as much money as will be required’. Kāt. (798) and Br. 972 (S. B. E. 33 p.363 vers 31 ) prescribe that if several violently beat a man to death, he who gives the fatal blow on a vital part is declared to be the murderer and is to suffer the full punishment for murder. Kat. ( 832-834) 973 and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 364 verse 32) provide that he who commences a crime of violence, who is a helper, who gives advice as to the way (in which sāhasa je to be carried out ), who gives refuge ( asylum) to the offender or supplies weapons, who gives food to wrongdoers, who incites ( offenders ) to put up a fight, who shows how the person ( killed ) is to be destroyed, who connives ( at the commission of an offence ), who exposes the faults of the person killed ), who gives his approval ( to the offence ), who though able does not forbid or prevent the com mission of the offence all these are (practically ) perpetrators of the crime and the king should award punishment accord ing to their ability and their guilt. Vide also Āp. Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 1. 974 For those who begin an offence or abet its commission Bṭ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 364 verse 32 ) prescribes half the punishment prescribed for the wrongdoer. 975 Yāj. (II. 232 242 ) enumerates several kinds of offences as allied to sāhasa and prescribes punishments therefor, such as breaking a house that is closed under seal, causing harm to neighbours and kulikas

971. यः साहस प्रतिपत्तेति कारयति स द्विगुणं दद्यात् । यावद्भिरण्यमुपयोक्ष्यते तावद areuria ao que TUTTI Spefia III. 17.

972. FT 7 ET T OT I HÅRETE Ted : # Vera: 11 . q. by f. 5. p. 373, 24. 4. p. 395; Hart via TUTH arotahi . g. by F . II. p. 312, fol. t. p. 373.

973. STECHETTY FUT Amie 27:1 311977: Wat u met para णाम् । युद्धोपदेशकश्चैव तद्विनाशदर्शकः । उपेक्षाकारकश्चैव दोषवत्तानुमोदकः । अनिषेद्धा क्षमो यः स्यारसर्वे ते कार्यकारिणः । यथाशक्त्यनुरूपं तु दण्डमेषां प्रकल्पयेत् । कास्या. q. by Fifa . II. p. 312, 417. #T. III. p. 455, fa. t. p. 375, 19. 4. p. 395. There are slight differences in readings.

974. For furt HT la pratiche e fita: 1 379. . II. 11. 29.1.

975. THTHT17 oft Tuta: # . q. by 471. 7. III. p. 455, R. T. p. 374, 79. 4. p. 395. Compare sections 119 and 120 of the I. P. C. for lesser sentences in the case of abettors,

67

530

| Voi.

(one’s agnates ), abandoning one’s parents or sons or brothers or sisters even though they be not patita, sexual intercourse with a widow, (intentional ) defilement of the higher castes by cāṇḍālas, making counter-feit coins or false weights and measures, giving quack medicines to royal officers or other men.

These are all passed over here.