Verse 8.318

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

राजभिः कृतदण्डास्तु कृत्वा पापानि मानवाः ।
निर्मलाः स्वर्गमायान्ति सन्तः सुकृतिनो यथा ॥ ३१८ ॥

rājabhiḥ kṛtadaṇḍāstu kṛtvā pāpāni mānavāḥ |
nirmalāḥ svargamāyānti santaḥ sukṛtino yathā || 318 ||

Men who, having committed crimes, have been punished by Kings, become freed from guilt and go to heaven, just like well-behaved good men.—(318)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above that by suppressing criminals the King protects the well-behaved. This same idea is further clearly stated.

Those on whom punishments have been inflicted by the King,—such men ‘having committed crimes, become freed from guilt,’ by the punishment meted out by the King; i.e., their sin becomes set aside.

Their sins set aside, they go to heaven, by virtue of those acts of theirs which entitle them to enter heaven. A serious crime stands in the way of the fruition of meritorions acts.

Like the men who are ‘well-behaved’—those who constantly perform meritorious acts; and are hence ‘good’—righteous.

The difference between the two is that in the case of the good men, there has been no guilt at all, while in the case of criminals, it has come about, but has been destroyed by the punishment; so that in the former case there is prior negation, while in the latter there is negation by destruction.

The use of the term ‘men’ in the text indicates that what is stated here does not refer to thieves only.

The term ‘punishment’ however continues to stand for corporeal punishment., and hence does not go beyond the sense in which it has been used in the present context.

Punishment in the form of fine’s comes useful to the king,—that being his means of livelihood; but in the ease of corporeal punishment it cannot be denied that if it is useful to any one; it must be so to the person punished; because the hurt inflicted therein affects the man’s skin.

In this connection, people may have the following idea:—“Protection of the people is not possible without hurting (criminals), and protection serves the purposes of the king; how then can the corporeal punishment be held to serve the purpose of the person punished?”

Is this argument meant to deny the palpable fact that protection is useful for the protected people? Certainly it cannot be said that the king employs all his officers only for the purposes of his own protection. If again, the corporeal punishment served the useful purpose of ‘protection’ only, it could not he regarded as useful for the person punished. Further, why should ‘protection’ of the people be not possible without the ‘hurt’ (involved in the punishment)? If the hurt is inflicted with the idea that if the man were not punished, he would repeat the act,—this purpose could be served even by reprimanding and such other means. If the idea he that on seeing him punished others would desist from similar acts,—the suffering meant to be caused could be brought about even by lines. Then again, even though criminals are punished, thousands of men are found to do the same act again and again.

From all this it follows that the corporeal punishment, while ‘ending to ‘protection’ (of the people), has to be regarded as serving the purpose of purifying the person punished. It is for this reason that there are rules laid down regarding the cutting off of limbs and other forms of corporeal punishment. All this produces an invisible effeet in the persons punished, and at the same time serves the purposes of the king (in the form of protection).

Thus it is established that the criminals become absolved from guilt only when there is corporeal punishment, and not when they are only fined.

It is for this same reason that in connection with the most heinous offenders, whoso entire property has been confiscated, and who have, by way of punishment, been made to stand in water,—branding has been prescribed, with a view to guard against people associating with them. If they became purified by the fine, any such branding would be futile.

In the present context, the special rules that have been laid down in regard to the criminal who has surrendered himself, and has not been arrested and brought up for trial, may refer to thieves only; but what is said in the present verse is meant to apply to all corporeal punishments.—(318)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.259), which notes that this refers to the death-penalty;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 120), to the effect that punishment serves to absolve one from the sin of the crime.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Vaśiṣṭha (19.45).—‘Men who have committed offences and have received from Kings the punishment due to them, go purified to heaven and are as holy as the virtuous.’