Verse 8.240

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

पथि क्षेत्रे परिवृते ग्रामान्तीयेऽथ वा पुनः ।
सपालः शतदण्डार्हो विपालान् वारयेत् पशून् ॥ २४० ॥

pathi kṣetre parivṛte grāmāntīye'tha vā punaḥ |
sapālaḥ śatadaṇḍārho vipālān vārayet paśūn || 240 ||

If cattle attended by the keeper be found in an enclosed field, on the road-side or near the village, the keeper should be fined a hundred; but cattle without a keeper shall be driven off.—(240)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In an enclosed field, either on the road-side, or near the village’— within the pasture-ground;—the term ‘anta’ means near;—if the cattle should eat the crops,—and the keeper be on the spot,—then he should ‘be fined a hundred’, since no fine could be imposed upon the cattle; so also when the keeper is close by, if he is too much engrossed in his family-affairs, and does not send any hired person to see to the cattle.

‘Cattle without a keeper’ should he ‘driven off’ with a stick or some such thing; and they shall not he punished. ‘Cattle without a keeper’ that are meant here are such calves as have been sot free in connection with certain religious rites. (These belong to no one). In the case of other cattle roaming about without a keeper, punishment shall he inflicted upon the owner.

Or, we may read ‘aparivṛtā,’ ‘unenclosed,’ ‘unfenced,’ for ‘parivṛtā,’ ‘enclosed,’ and ‘sapāla’ may be taken as standing for ‘the owner along with the keeper,’—the compound ‘sapāla’ meaning a party other than the one denoted by the terms of the compound, i.e., one along with the keeper—and the question arising ‘who is to be punished in this case?’—the answer is that both the owner of the field and the keeper of the cattle should ho punished;—tho owner being punished for the fault of having cultivated the field near the road-side and not fencing it; if it had been fenced, how could the crops have been eaten?

‘Cattle without a keeper’—which may have strayed from the herd—should be driven off. Says Gautama (12.21)—‘When there is an unfenced field on the road-side, punishment shall be inflicted on the keeper and on the cultivator of the field.’—(240)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Vārayet’—Rāmacandra reads ‘cārayet’ and takes the whole verse as a single sentence—‘If the cattle-keeper takes the cattle to graze in a field that is fenced, he shall be fined along with his master.’

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 232), which reads ‘cārayet’ for ‘vārayet it explains the meaning of the verse to be—‘The field on the road-side or on village precincts being duly fenced, if its crops are eaten (this clause is to be added), then the keeper of the cattle is to be fined one hundred (paṇas), and the stray cattle is to he caught and tied up.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 266), which adds the following notes:—When a field on the road-side has been duly fenced, if cattle break through the fence and destroy the crops, the keeper of the cattle is to be filled a hundred paṇas; similarly when a field on the precincts of a village has been duly fenced, if cattle break into it and eat the crops, the keeper is to be fined a hundred paṇas. This indicates that there is to be no punishment if the field is unfenced.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 771), which explains the meaning to be that when the field on the road-side and other such places has been duly fenced, if it is damaged by cattle which is attended by their keeper, then the keeper is to be fined one hundred; but if the cattle is unattended it shall be driven off;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 137b), which explains ‘pathi kṣetre’ a s ‘in a field close by the path,’—and ‘grāmāntīye’ as ‘lying on the outskirts of the village.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (11.28, 29, 35).—‘When crops have been destroyed by cows or other cattle crossing a fence, the herdsman deserves punishment in that case, unless he should have done his best to keep the cattle off. When the crops have been entirely destroyed to the very roots, the owner of them may claim a corresponding quantity of grain as damages; the herdsman shall be corporally punished: and the owner of the cattle shall pay a fine. When cows, straying through the fault of their keeper, have entered a field, no punishment shall be inflicted on their owner; the herdsman alone being punishable.’

Gautama (12.19-20).—‘If damage is done by cattle, the responsibility lies on the owner; but if the cattle were attended by a herdsman, then it falls on the latter.’

Āpastamba (2.28.5).—‘If cattle, leaving their stable, eat the crops of other persons, then the owner of the crops, or the King’s servants, may make them lean by impounding them; hut this punishment shall not he over-done.’

Viṣṇu (5.140-146).—‘If a she-buffalo damages crops, her keeper shall he fined eight māṣas; if she has been without a keeper, her owner shall pay the fine. For mischief done by a horse or a camel, or an ass, the fine shall he the same. For damage done by a cow, it shall he half; half of that again in the case of the goat or the sheep. For cattle abiding in the field after eating the crops, the fine shall he double; and in every case the owner of the field shall receive the value of the crops that have been destroyed.’

Yājñavalkya (2.162).—‘In the case of a field on the roadside, or adjacent to the pasture-land of the village, if cattle is allowed to graze unintentionally, there is no offence; but if it is done intentionally, the man deserves punishment like the thief.’

Uśanas (Vivādaratnākara, p. 232).—‘If a man asks for compensation for the crops that may haves been grazed by a cow, his Pitṛs and deities do not accept his offerings.’