Yajnavalkya-smriti (Vyavaharadhyaya)—Critical study

by Kalita Nabanita | 2017 | 87,413 words

This page relates ‘Laws of Evidence (pramana) and Witnesses (sakshin)’ of the study on the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Yajnavalkya-smriti: one of the most prominent Smritis dealing with Dharmashastra (ancient Indian science of law), dating to the 1st century B.C. The Yajnavalkyasmriti scientifically arranges its contents in three sections: Acara (proper conduct), Vyavahara (proper law) and Prayashcitta (expiation). Vyavahara deals with judicial procedure and legal system such as substantive law and procedural law.

Chapter 5.3 - The Laws of Evidence (pramāṇa) and Witnesses (sākṣin)

Yājñavalkya has described the laws of evidence [i.e., pramāṇa] relating to witness, document, and ordeal after deposit, while discussing the titles of law one by one. Among the four modes of evidence, he has discussed possession under the chapter, dealing with rules of procedure and other three as independent topics as part of substantive law. His chapter on witnesses, consisting of sixteen verses, includes systematic discourse on this important means of proof, concerning legal process. The term sākṣin is used by Yājñavalkya for witnesses. The definition of the term sākṣin is not found in the Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti.

According to the Manusmṛti, a witness is one who has himself either seen or heard the matter in dispute.[1] Here it is implied that witnesses or oral evidence [i.e., pramāṇa] should be direct instead of being hearsay. Yājñavalkya begins this chapter with an instruction about the important qualifications to be possessed by the witnesses. People practising austerities, charitable, belonging to respectable families, descendant of noble race, truthful, devoted to religious observances, straightforward or simple, having children, and a wealthy person may be examined as witnesses.[2] Moreover, they should be devoted to the performance of śrauta and smārta rites. Usually witnesses are preferred to be of same jāti (lineage or class) and varṇa (caste) with that of the parties to the suit. The law of Yājñavalkya permits an option that persons of all jāti and varṇa can also be the witnesses for all.[3] The text commented by Viśvarūpa contains the word punaḥ on this rule of Yājñavalkya and so according to Viśvarūpa, the option is permissible depending upon the necessity or situation of the case such as in absence of the witnesses of same caste or class.[4]

Regarding the number of witnesses [i.e., sākṣin], Yājñavalkya holds the standard number to be not less than three.[5] He has not prescribed the maximum limit, but wants minimum three witnesses in a case. It is in conformity with the law of Kauṭilya.[6] Manu mentions it in the context of only cases relating to debt,[7] but Yājñavalkya refers to cases in general. Considering the practical necessity, Yājñavalkya allows flexibility to this rule that witnesses should not be less than three. An exception is provided that even one virtuous man alone may be sufficient witness if both parties to the suit give consent.[8] Here he emphasises more on quality than on quantity. Some of the persons are declared disqualified to be referred as witnesses. The list of incompetent witnesses provided by Yājñavalkya contains women, a child of tender age, an old man, gamblers, intoxicated one, a mad man, a person known to be guilty of a deadly sin, actor or heretic, a forger, deformed person, one degraded from caste, friend or relative, persons having some interest with the subject-matter of the dispute, an ally, an enemy, a thief, reckless individual, one known to be a liar, one deserted and the like.[9]

Manu’s[10] list of incompetent witnesses [i.e., sākṣin] also includes a śrotriya, i.e. student of the veda, an ascetic and the king, whom he has excused and excluded from being witnesses. Yājñavalkya has not mentioned them in his list of incompetent witnesses, thereby he has not released them, rather considered competent to give witness. Nārada gives the longest list with eighty-seven incompetent witnesses.[11] However an exception is allowed that in matters of adultery, theft, pāruṣya, i.e. defamation and assault, and in sāhasa, i.e. heinous offences, any person may be accepted as witnesses.[12] This means offences of serious nature are generally committed secretly, and therefore, difficulty arises to get witnesses; so competence of witnesses should not be enquired into very strictly as in other cases of civil nature. One can mark the brevity and clarity of the author in delineating laws, concerning oath given to the witnesses without doing it lengthy, in brief exhorts the necessity of speaking truth by declaring the demerit, which witnesses gain deposing untruth. It is stated that the judges should inspire or affirm the witnesses in presence of the plaintiff and the defendant.[13] It is interesting to note that the process of administering oath to the witnesses is still prevailing in practice of legal system. The person after being put to an oath, if does not depose anything, i.e. he does not give evidence about loan, then he should be made to pay by the king whole debt together with tenth part as charge added thereto on the forty-sixth day.[14]

According to the Mitākṣarā, the entire debt, i.e. along with interest should be made to pay by the king to the creditor and the tenth part is to be taken by the king.[15] In modern times, a duty or legal obligation is imposed on the citizen to appear before and to assist the court of justice when summoned. Even Yājñavalkya has stressed this principle long before. He considers that a witness, who although knowing well all the facts of the case does not give evidence, is equally guilty in the eyes of law, to that of a false witness, and so suggests the same punishment ordained to a false witness.[16]

Yājñavalkya also provides the punishment to be afflicted for false witnesses [i.e., sākṣin]. One who produces perjured evidences [i.e., pramāṇa] and the false witnesses, should be punished separately with double the penalty of the person, defeated in the suit.[17] Again, if a witness having accepted and having been sworn to give evidence, influenced by fear, anger, etc., conceals it to others is to be fined eight times of the fine payable by the defeated party.[18]

Yājñavalkya lays down the rule concerning the testimony of witnesses, which leads to success and defeat. The general rule is that whose statements are declared true by the witnesses succeeds or wins the case, on the other hand, the party whose claim is deposed to be false certainly loses the case.[19] The witnesses, who have already been examined, may be proved as false, if the witnesses that are more reliable or twice the number of witnesses that have been examined earlier, depose otherwise.[20] The rule expounded by Yājñavalkya for taking decision when witnesses contradict, is that the testimony of the majority should be accepted, if they are equally divided, then the evidence of virtuous prevails and in case of conflict among virtuous that of the most virtuous should be accepted.[21]

The laws relating to witnesses [i.e., sākṣin] found in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti show conformity with some of the important aspects with the laws on witnesses, now in force. The grounds prescribed to judge, the incompetency of the witnesses under section 118 of Indian Evidence Act such as tender age, extreme old age, disease of either body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind are also mentioned by Yājñavalkya. Section 134 of the same Act requires no particular number of witnesses for the proof of any fact.[22] Therefore, the idea is same with the law of Yājñavalkya that court can act even on the sole testimony of a single reliable witness. Moreover, giving false witness, inducing, or forcing to give false witness is regarded as offence and section 191 to 205 of Indian Penal Code provides details of offences and punishment for such offence.[23]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

samakṣadarśanātsākṣyaṃ śravaṇāccaiva siddhyati/ Manusmṛti,8.74

[2]:

tapasvino dānaśīlāḥ kulīnāḥ satyavādinaḥ/ dharmapradhānā ṛjabaḥ putravanto dhanānvitāḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.68

[3]:

yathājāti yathāvarṇaṃ sarve sarveṣu vā smṛtaḥ// Ibid.,2.69

[4]:

punaḥśabdo’vasarāpekṣayā/ sākṣyantarābhāve punarvakṣyamāṇakāryāpekṣayā vā sarve sarveṣāṃ, yathā sarvaḥ saṅgrahaṇe sākṣīti/ Bālakrīḍā, Ibid., 2.71

[5]:

tryavarāḥ sākṣiṇo jñeyāḥ/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.69

[6]:

asaṃpratipattau tu sākṣiṇaḥ pramāṇaṃ prātyayikāḥ śu cayo’numatā vā trayo’varārdhyāḥ// Arthaśāstra, 3.11.26

[7]:

Manusmṛti, 8.60

[8]:

ubhayānumataḥ sākṣī bhavatyeko’pi dharmavit/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.72

[9]:

Ibid., 2.70-71

[10]:

Manusmṛti, 64-72

[11]:

Nāradasmṛti, 4.1. 157-171

[12]:

sarvaḥ sākṣī saṃgrahaṇai cauryapāruṣyasāhase// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.72

[13]:

Ibid., 2.73-75

[14]:

abruvanhi naraḥ sākṣyamṛṇaṃ sadaśabandhakam/ rājñā sarvaṃ pradāpyaḥ syātṣaṭcatvā riṃśake’hani// Ibid., 2.76

[15]:

… rājñā sarvaṃ savṛddhikamṛṇaṃ dhanine dāpyaḥ sadaśabandhakaṃ daśamāṃśasahitaṃ/ daśamāṃśaśca rājño bhavati/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid.

[16]:

na dadāti hi yaḥ sākṣyaṃ jānannapi narādhamaḥ/ sa kūṭasākṣiṇāṃ pāpaistulyo daṇḍena caiva hi// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.77

[17]:

pṛthakpṛthagdaṇḍanīyāḥ kūṭakṛtsākṣinastathā/ vivādāddviguṇaṃ daṇḍaṃ vivāsyo brāhmaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ// Ibid., 2.81

[18]:

Ibid., 2.82

[19]:

tasyocuḥ sākṣiṇaḥ satyāṃ pratijñāṃ sa jayī bhavet/ anyathāvādino yasya dhruvastasya parājayaḥ// Ibid., 2.79

[20]:

Ibid., 2.80

[21]:

dvaidhe bahūnāṃ vacanaṃ sameṣu guṇināṃ tathā/ guṇidvaidhe tu vacanaṃ grāhyaṃ ye guṇavattamāḥ// Ibid., 2.78

[22]:

cf., Lal, B., Op.cit., page513, 556

[23]:

Misra, S.N., Indian Penal Code, page374-390

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: