Verse 8.323

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

पुरुषाणां कुलीनानां नारीणां च विशेषतः ।
मुख्यानां चैव रत्नानां हरणे वधमर्हति ॥ ३२३ ॥

puruṣāṇāṃ kulīnānāṃ nārīṇāṃ ca viśeṣataḥ |
mukhyānāṃ caiva ratnānāṃ haraṇe vadhamarhati || 323 ||

For stealing noble men, and specially women, and the precious gems, the thief deserves ‘immolation.’—(323)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Noble,’—born of good families and possessed of learning and other good qualities.

‘Specially women,’—snoh as are possessed of good qualities, beauty and grace.

The particle ‘ca,’ ‘and,’ indicates that ‘nobility’ and the other qualifications are meant, as far as possible, to be applicable to both ‘men’ and ‘women.’

‘Precious gems,’—such as diamond, lapis-lazuli, emerald and so forth.

Here also it is to be understood that the articles stolen should he equivalent in value to ‘a hundred of gold’; otherwise, since the qualification ‘precious’ is a relative term, there would be no definiteness in the rule prescribing the punishment.

‘Deserves immolation’;—the exact meaning of ‘immolation’ is to be determined in all cases by the peculiarity of the circumstances of each individual case.

In the case of the stealing of men and women who are not ‘noble,’ or of gems that are not ‘precious,’—there shall be a fine eleven times the value of what is stolen.—(323)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 317), which explains ‘Kulīnānām’ as ‘born of good families—and ‘mukhyānām ratnānām’ as ‘emerald and the like’,—again at p. 324.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.275), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—The reading of the third foot accepted by all is ‘mukhyānāñcaiva ratnānām’, and ‘ratnānāñcaiva sarveṣām’ is wrong reading; the meaning is that ‘for stealing persons born of great families, specially ladies of great families, and also of diamond, sapphire and other valuable gems, the thief deserves the death-penalty’ in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 344), which says that this clearly refers to the enticing away of boys and girls of good families, and not of slaves,—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 134), which explains ‘mukhya-ratna’ as standing for the emerald and the rest;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 152a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (Theft, 28).—‘he who steals a man shall have to pay the highest fine; he who steals a woman shall be deprived of his entire wealth; and he who steals a maiden shall suffer corporal punishment.’

Bṛhaspati (22. 27-28).—‘In the case of women, men, gold, gems, the property of a deity or a Brāhmaṇa, silk and other precious things, the fine shall be equal to the value of the article stolen; or double that amount shall he inflicted as fine; or the thief shall be executed.’

Do. (22.18; Vivādaratnākara, p. 317)—‘Those who steal human beings should be burnt by the slow fire of chaff.’

Vyāsa (Do.).—‘The stealer of women shall he burnt on an iron bed by the slow fire of chaff; the stealer of man should have his hands and feet cut off and then exposed on the road-crossing. He who steals a man should he fined the highest amercement; he who steals a woman should have his entire property confiscated; and he who steals a maiden shall he put to death.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 318).—‘For stealing a king’s son, the fine is 108 kārṣāpaṇas, or corporal punishment; half of that for stealing persons of the royal family, or of men and women in general.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 101).—‘If one forcibly confines, or forcibly releases, a man or woman, he shall be fined not less than 500 or more than 1,000 Paṇas, i.e., the highest amercement.’