Verse 8.60

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

पृष्टोऽपव्ययमानस्तु कृतावस्थो धनेषिणा ।
त्र्यवरैः साक्षिभिर्भाव्यो नृपब्राह्मणसंनिधौ ॥ ६० ॥

pṛṣṭo'pavyayamānastu kṛtāvastho dhaneṣiṇā |
tryavaraiḥ sākṣibhirbhāvyo nṛpabrāhmaṇasaṃnidhau || 60 ||

On having been summoned and questioned, if one denies it,—then he siiall be convicted by the man seeking for his due by means of at least three witnesses, in the presence of the king and the brāhmaṇas.—(60)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Being ‘summoned’— called, complained against, and let off on security,—‘and questioned’— in the presence of the King, either by the judge or by other members of the Court—‘Do you, or do you not, owe this amount to this person?’—if the man denies it; ‘then he shall he c onv icted,’—proved to be wrong—‘by the man seeking for his due’—i.e., by the person who is desirous of proving that the sum had been really lent by him,—‘by means of at least three witnesses’;—the compound ‘tryavara’ means ‘of whom three is the least number,’ the term ‘avara’ standing for the minimum; the meaning being that if they are to be fewest, they should he three; otherwise they should he more than three;—in the presence of the King and the Brāhmaṇas.’

An objection is raised:—“The witnesses are naturally to be questioned before the persons by whom the case has begun to be tried; why then should it ho asserted that this has to be done in the presence of the King and the Brāhmaṇas?”

There is no force in this. It is just possible that the witnesses might be questioned by deputing a trustworthy person to go to them; hence with a view to emphasise that the witnesses should be questioned personally by the trying persons, it has been reiterated here.—(60)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (2.26).—‘When the defendant denies the claim, the plaintiff has to prove his claim, unless the denial should have been in the form of a special plea. What the plaintiff has fully stated in the plaint, that he must substantiate by adducing evidence at the third stage of the trial.’

Nārada (1.147 (?)).—‘In doubtful cases, when two parties are quarrelling with one another, the truth has to be gathered from witnesses, whose knowledge is based on what has been seen, heard or understood by them.’

Bṛhaspati (5.1-3).—‘When litigants are quarrelling in a court of justice, the Judges, after examining the answer, shall adjudge the burden of proof to either of the two parties. The Judges............ having determined to which party the burden of proof shall be adjudged, that person shall substantiate the whole of his declaration by documents or other proofs. The plaintiff shall prove his declaration, and the defendant his special plea.’

Āpastamba (2.29.7).—‘The witness shall answer the questions put to him, according to the truth, in the morning, before a kindled fire, standing near water, in the presence of the King, with the consent of all, after having been exhorted by the Judges to be fair to both sides.’

Gautama (13.1).—‘In disputed cases the truth shall be established by means of witnesses.’

Yājñavalkya (2.69). ‘Witnesses should be at least three.’