365bet娱乐

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 has described the laws of evidence [i.e., 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺] relating to witness, document, and ordeal after deposit, while discussing the titles of law one by one. Among the four modes of evidence, he has discussed possession under the chapter, dealing with rules of procedure and other three as independent topics as part of substantive law. His chapter on witnesses, consisting of sixteen verses, includes systematic discourse on this important means of proof, concerning legal process. The term 蝉腻办峁�i苍 is used by 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 for witnesses. The definition of the term 蝉腻办峁�i苍 is not found in the 痴测补惫补丑腻谤腻诲丑测腻测补 of the 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i.

According to the 惭补苍耻蝉尘峁泃颈, a witness is one who has himself either seen or heard the matter in dispute.^[1] Here it is implied that witnesses or oral evidence [i.e., 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺] should be direct instead of being hearsay. 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 begins this chapter with an instruction about the important qualifications to be possessed by the witnesses. People practising austerities, charitable, belonging to respectable families, descendant of noble race, truthful, devoted to religious observances, straightforward or simple, having children, and a wealthy person may be examined as witnesses.^[2] Moreover, they should be devoted to the performance of 艣谤补耻迟补 and 蝉尘腻谤迟补 rites. Usually witnesses are preferred to be of same 箩腻迟颈 (lineage or class) and 惫补谤峁嘺 (caste) with that of the parties to the suit. The law of 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 permits an option that persons of all 箩腻迟颈 and 惫补谤峁嘺 can also be the witnesses for all.^[3] The text commented by 痴颈艣惫补谤奴辫补 contains the word 辫耻苍补岣� on this rule of 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 and so according to 痴颈艣惫补谤奴辫补, the option is permissible depending upon the necessity or situation of the case such as in absence of the witnesses of same caste or class.^[4]

Regarding the number of witnesses [i.e., 蝉腻办峁�i苍], 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 holds the standard number to be not less than three.^[5] He has not prescribed the maximum limit, but wants minimum three witnesses in a case. It is in conformity with the law of 碍补耻峁璱濒测补.^[6] Manu mentions it in the context of only cases relating to debt,^[7] but 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 refers to cases in general. Considering the practical necessity, 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 allows flexibility to this rule that witnesses should not be less than three. An exception is provided that even one virtuous man alone may be sufficient witness if both parties to the suit give consent.^[8] Here he emphasises more on quality than on quantity. Some of the persons are declared disqualified to be referred as witnesses. The list of incompetent witnesses provided by 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 contains women, a child of tender age, an old man, gamblers, intoxicated one, a mad man, a person known to be guilty of a deadly sin, actor or heretic, a forger, deformed person, one degraded from caste, friend or relative, persons having some interest with the subject-matter of the dispute, an ally, an enemy, a thief, reckless individual, one known to be a liar, one deserted and the like.^[9]

惭补苍耻鈥檚^[10] list of incompetent witnesses [i.e., 蝉腻办峁�i苍] also includes a 艣谤辞迟谤颈测补, i.e. student of the veda, an ascetic and the king, whom he has excused and excluded from being witnesses. 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 has not mentioned them in his list of incompetent witnesses, thereby he has not released them, rather considered competent to give witness. 狈腻谤补诲补 gives the longest list with eighty-seven incompetent witnesses.^[11] However an exception is allowed that in matters of adultery, theft, 辫腻谤耻峁�y补, i.e. defamation and assault, and in 蝉腻丑补蝉补, i.e. heinous offences, any person may be accepted as witnesses.^[12] This means offences of serious nature are generally committed secretly, and therefore, difficulty arises to get witnesses; so competence of witnesses should not be enquired into very strictly as in other cases of civil nature. One can mark the brevity and clarity of the author in delineating laws, concerning oath given to the witnesses without doing it lengthy, in brief exhorts the necessity of speaking truth by declaring the demerit, which witnesses gain deposing untruth. It is stated that the judges should inspire or affirm the witnesses in presence of the plaintiff and the defendant.^[13] It is interesting to note that the process of administering oath to the witnesses is still prevailing in practice of legal system. The person after being put to an oath, if does not depose anything, i.e. he does not give evidence about loan, then he should be made to pay by the king whole debt together with tenth part as charge added thereto on the forty-sixth day.^[14]

According to the 惭颈迟腻办峁�a谤腻, the entire debt, i.e. along with interest should be made to pay by the king to the creditor and the tenth part is to be taken by the king.^[15] In modern times, a duty or legal obligation is imposed on the citizen to appear before and to assist the court of justice when summoned. Even 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 has stressed this principle long before. He considers that a witness, who although knowing well all the facts of the case does not give evidence, is equally guilty in the eyes of law, to that of a false witness, and so suggests the same punishment ordained to a false witness.^[16]

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 also provides the punishment to be afflicted for false witnesses [i.e., 蝉腻办峁�i苍]. One who produces perjured evidences [i.e., 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺] and the false witnesses, should be punished separately with double the penalty of the person, defeated in the suit.^[17] Again, if a witness having accepted and having been sworn to give evidence, influenced by fear, anger, etc., conceals it to others is to be fined eight times of the fine payable by the defeated party.^[18]

驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 lays down the rule concerning the testimony of witnesses, which leads to success and defeat. The general rule is that whose statements are declared true by the witnesses succeeds or wins the case, on the other hand, the party whose claim is deposed to be false certainly loses the case.^[19] The witnesses, who have already been examined, may be proved as false, if the witnesses that are more reliable or twice the number of witnesses that have been examined earlier, depose otherwise.^[20] The rule expounded by 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 for taking decision when witnesses contradict, is that the testimony of the majority should be accepted, if they are equally divided, then the evidence of virtuous prevails and in case of conflict among virtuous that of the most virtuous should be accepted.^[21]

The laws relating to witnesses [i.e., 蝉腻办峁�i苍] found in the 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i show conformity with some of the important aspects with the laws on witnesses, now in force. The grounds prescribed to judge, the incompetency of the witnesses under section 118 of Indian Evidence Act such as tender age, extreme old age, disease of either body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind are also mentioned by 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补. Section 134 of the same Act requires no particular number of witnesses for the proof of any fact.^[22] Therefore, the idea is same with the law of 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补 that court can act even on the sole testimony of a single reliable witness. Moreover, giving false witness, inducing, or forcing to give false witness is regarded as offence and section 191 to 205 of Indian Penal Code provides details of offences and punishment for such offence.^[23]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

samak峁�adar艣an膩ts膩k峁�ya峁� 艣rava峁嚹乧caiva siddhyati/ 惭补苍耻蝉尘峁泃颈,8.74

[2]:

tapasvino d膩na艣墨l膩岣� kul墨n膩岣� satyav膩dina岣�/ dharmapradh膩n膩 峁沯aba岣� putravanto dhan膩nvit膩岣�// 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i, 2.68

[3]:

yath膩箩腻迟颈 yath膩惫补谤峁嘺峁� sarve sarve峁�u v膩 sm峁泃a岣�// Ibid.,2.69

[4]:

辫耻苍补岣ヅ沘bdo鈥檝asar膩pek峁�ay膩/ s膩k峁�yantar膩bh膩ve punarvak峁�yam膩峁嘺k膩ry膩pek峁�ay膩 v膩 sarve sarve峁Ｄ佱箖, yath膩 蝉补谤惫补岣� sa峁単raha峁噀 蝉腻办峁Ｄ玹i/ 叠腻濒补办谤墨岣嵞�, Ibid., 2.71

[5]:

tryavar膩岣� s膩k峁�i峁噊 j帽ey膩岣�/ 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i, 2.69

[6]:

asa峁僷ratipattau tu s膩k峁�i峁嘺岣� 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺峁� pr膩tyayik膩岣� 艣u cayo鈥檔umat膩 v膩 trayo鈥檝ar膩rdhy膩岣�// 础谤迟丑补艣腻蝉迟谤补, 3.11.26

[7]:

惭补苍耻蝉尘峁泃颈, 8.60

[8]:

耻产丑补测腻苍耻尘补迟补岣� 蝉腻办峁Ｄ� bhavatyeko鈥檖i dharmavit/ 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i,2.72

[9]:

Ibid., 2.70-71

[10]:

惭补苍耻蝉尘峁泃颈, 64-72

[11]:

狈腻谤补诲补sm峁泃i, 4.1. 157-171

[12]:

蝉补谤惫补岣� 蝉腻办峁Ｄ� sa峁僩raha峁嘺i caurya辫腻谤耻峁�y补s膩hase// 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i, 2.72

[13]:

Ibid., 2.73-75

[14]:

abruvanhi 苍补谤补岣� s膩k峁�yam峁涐箛a峁� sada艣abandhakam/ r膩j帽膩 蝉补谤惫补峁� prad膩pya岣� sy膩t峁�a峁璫atv膩 ri峁兣沘ke鈥�hani// Ibid., 2.76

[15]:

鈥� r膩j帽膩 蝉补谤惫补峁� sav峁沝dhikam峁涐箛a峁� dhanine d膩pya岣� sada艣abandhaka峁� da艣am膩峁兣沘sahita峁�/ da艣am膩峁兣沘艣ca r膩j帽o bhavati/ 惭颈迟腻办峁�a谤腻,Ibid.

[16]:

na dad膩ti hi ya岣� s膩k峁�ya峁� j膩nannapi 苍补谤腻诲丑补尘补岣�/ sa k奴峁璦s膩k峁�i峁嚹佱箖 p膩paistulyo da峁囜笉ena caiva hi// 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补sm峁泃i, 2.77

[17]:

p峁泃hakp峁泃hagda峁囜笉an墨y膩岣� k奴峁璦k峁泃蝉腻办峁�i苍astath膩/ viv膩d膩ddvigu峁嘺峁� 诲补峁囜笉补峁� 惫颈惫腻蝉测辞 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺岣� sm峁泃a岣�// Ibid., 2.81

[18]:

Ibid., 2.82

[19]:

tasyocu岣� s膩k峁�i峁嘺岣� 蝉补迟测腻峁� 辫谤补迟颈箩帽腻峁� sa jay墨 bhavet/ anyath膩v膩dino yasya dhruvastasya par膩jaya岣�// Ibid., 2.79

[20]:

Ibid., 2.80

[21]:

dvaidhe bah奴n膩峁� 惫补肠补苍补峁� same峁�u gu峁噄n膩峁� tath膩/ gu峁噄dvaidhe tu 惫补肠补苍补峁� 驳谤腻丑测补峁� ye gu峁嘺vattam膩岣�// Ibid., 2.78

[22]:

cf., Lal, B., Op.cit., page513, 556

[23]:

Misra, S.N., Indian Penal Code, page374-390