Verse 8.57

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

साक्षिणः सन्ति मेत्युक्त्वा दिशेत्युक्तो दिशेन्न यः ।
धर्मस्थः कारणैरेतैर्हीनं तमपि निर्दिशेत् ॥ ५७ ॥

sākṣiṇaḥ santi metyuktvā diśetyukto diśenna yaḥ |
dharmasthaḥ kāraṇairetairhīnaṃ tamapi nirdiśet || 57 ||

Having asserted that he has witnesses, and on being asked to name them, if he does not name them,—him also, on these grounds, the judge shall declare to have failed in his suit.—(57)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘jñātāraḥ’ stands for witnesses. Having said that ‘I have witnesses,’ he is ordered—‘name them’; thereupon, if he does not name them, indicating their residence, name and caste;—then, on each of the above-mentioned grounds, he should be regarded as having failed.

‘Dharmasthaḥ’ is one who has been appointed to try cases,—the Judge; and he should pronounce him to have failed, saying ‘this man is non-suited.’

Just as one loses his case by the other party adducing proofs establishing the contrary of his contention, so does he lose it also by the absence of proofs in support of it; and this absence of proofs is ascertained by the fact of their not being adduced by the party at the right time, even though repeatedly asked to do so,—as also by the adducing of proofs to the contrary.

‘Jñātāraḥ’ ends in the ‘tṛn’ affix; and as such it should govern a noun in the Accusative case, the use of the Genitive being precluded by Pāṇini, 2.3.69.

The right reading being ‘hīnam tam’—the particle ‘iṭi’ should be taken as denoting kind;—the sense being—‘on these, and on other similar grounds, the Judge shall declare him to have failed’;—if, on the other hand, the particle ‘iti’ he taken as referring to the whole sentence, then the correct reading would he ‘hīno’-sau’; because the whole sentence being the object of the verb, there would be nothing to justify the use of the Accusative ending (in ‘hīnam tam’).

These grounds of defeat are infallible, unlike the aspect, gestures, etc. (of the parties), which are fallible.

If at the time of the enquiry, a party does not present himself,—or oven though presenting himself, does not offer any answer,—then it becomes certain that there are ne grounds for the man succeeding in his suit. If the King were not to non-suit the party who never offers an answer, then the entire judicial machinery would become upset.

As regards the man not perceiving the inconsistency between his first and subsequent statements,—this has to be treated on the same footing as gesture and other indicative signs. In the case of a man who throughout is very talkative and bold and clever, gestures and other indicatives are not infallible guides; and being similar to indirect verbal indicatives, they are only regarded as corrobarative of the decision regarding defeat or victory taken on other grounds.—(57)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (22b), which explains ‘dharmasthaḥ’ as ‘one who is occupying the judgment seat’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 31b), which explains the construction as—‘mā,’ mām, ‘gnātāraḥ,’ persons knowing that what I state is true, &c., &c., as being, according to Medhātithi, but goes on to add, that according to the Ācārya,’ ‘meti’stands for ‘me-iti,’ the sandhi being explained as a Vedic anomaly. It notes the reading, ‘Santi jñātāra ityuktvā,’ as found in Kalpataru, but rejects it as an unauthorised reading.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.53-57)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.53.