with the Commentary of Medhatithi 209 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 215 из 350Следующая ⇒

yatrānibaddho'pīkṣeta śṛṇuyād vā'pi kiṃ cana |
pṛṣṭastatrāpi tad brūyād yathādṛṣṭaṃ yathāśrutam ||76||

Even though not put down as a witness, if a person happens to see or hear anything in regard to a case, — when he comes to be questioned about it, he should speak out exactly as he has seen or heard it. — (76)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Under verso 74 it has been already declared that even though a man may not have been originally appointed as a witness, his evidence, as bearing upon what is directly known to him, is admissible; what then is the use of saying again that ‘even though not put down, etc., etc.’? What additional information is provided by this verse?

People might be led to think that — ‘when a man has been put down as a witness on the original document, his evidence is admissible as a matter of course, — but not so that of one who has not been so put down, — for if both were admissible, then there would be no point in entering any witnesses upon the document.’ It is with a view to set aside this idea that the author has added the present verse. The former verse refers to cases where no witnesses have been put down, while this refers to a case where the document is duly attested by witnesses.

‘Not put down’ — not entered in the document.

‘Seeing’ and ‘hearing’ have been already explained.

The rest is clear. — (76)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Anibaddhaḥ’ — ‘Not entered as a witness in the document’ (Medhātithi),‘ — but accidentally present at the transaction’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāratattva (p. 26); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (28a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 46a), which explains ‘anibaddhaḥ’ as ‘not cited or entered.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (8.12). — ‘An appointed witness having died or gone abroad, those who have heard the tacts from him may give evidence.’

Śukranīti (4.5.392). — ‘A person present in court must depose truly as to what he has seen or heard, when asked, even though he may not have been cited as a witness.’

Nārada (1.161). — ‘He who, without having been appointed to ho a witness, comes of his own accord to make a deposition, is termed a spy in the law-books; he is unworthy to bear testimony.’

Do. (1.166). — ‘If a witness dies or goes abroad after having been appointed, those who may have heard his statement may give evidence; for indirect proof makes evidence.’

VERSE 8.77

Section XII (A) - Evidence

एकोऽलुब्धस्तु साक्षी स्याद् बह्व्यः शुच्योऽपि न स्त्रियः ।
स्त्रीबुद्धेरस्थिरत्वात् तु दोषैश्चान्येऽपि ये वृताः ॥७७॥

eko'lubdhastu sākṣī syād bahvyaḥ śucyo'pi na striyaḥ |
strībuddherasthiratvāt tu doṣaiścānye'pi ye vṛtāḥ ||77||

A single man, free from covetousness, may be a witness, but not many women, even though pure, — because the understanding of women is not steady, — nor other men who are tainted with defects. — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The evidence of a single person having been declared to be inadmissible, the present verse lavs down an exception in favour of one who is free from covetousness. So that if a man is known to be truthful, he is certainly admissible as witness. But women are never admissible, — be they one or many, — ‘even though pure’ — possessed of high qualifications; and the reason for this is that ‘the understanding of women is not steady’; fickle-mindedness is the very nature of women; while other qualifications are acquired, and as such liable to lapses through carelessness, idleness and so forth; so that their inherent fickleness remains as a constant factor. Just as in the case of a dyspeptic, — even though a certain amount of appetite may have been regained by the use of butter and other things, yet even the least neglect on their part, brings on the inherent Dyspepsia again. Consequently, on account of this uncertainty, there can be no confidence in women, even though they be highly qualified.

As for the declaration (in 70) that ‘in the event of no witnesses being available, women may be made witnesses,’ — that refers to cases where they can be immediately questioned, and there is no possibility of their mind being tampered with by any person. When however there has been an interval of time, it is quite possible that they may be won over by the party whoso case is weak and who is in fear of losing it. So that in such cases their evidence is not admissible at all.

‘Other men tainted with defects; — even persons other than women, — and men, — who are ‘tainted’ — beset — with such defects as love, hatred and so forth; i.e., men in whom those defects abound to a every large extent.

Though Love, Hatred and the rest, as being forbidden by the scriptures, have, already been declared by name to be sources of suspicion and dishonesty, — yet they are referred to here again, for the purpose of including those that have not been so mentioned by name, and all writers sanction the mentioning of the general and special aspects of the same tiling.

Some people have adopted the ‘a’ before ‘lubdha’ and construed the verse to mean that ‘even though free from covetousness, a single man cannot be a witness, — how much less then one who is covetous,’ — and hence as permitting the evidence of two men.

Though the form ‘śucyaḥ’ is impossible, in view of Pāṇini 4.1.44, yet some people justify it as being in accordance with the Vārtika on 4.1.45 — (77)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 213), which adds the following notes: — ‘Eko’ lubdhastu sākṣī’ is the reading adopted by Kullūka Bhaṭṭa; the other reading — ‘eko lubdhastvasākṣī’ — adopted by Jīmūtavāhana, is not right; because as a matter of fact, even several avaricious men would be asākṣī, and hence there would be no point in the term ‘ekaḥ.’ But admitting this reading, the verse could be taken as not admitting the evidence of one ‘avaricious man’, and thereby admitting that of one man who is free from avarice, even though he be ignorant of law. It is for this reason that Viśvarūpa and others have explained the meaning to be that when accepted by both parties, even a single man may be admitted as witness, and they have not laid stress upon the condition that he should be ‘conversant with law; — ‘Dośaiḥ’ stands for theft and so forth.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (32a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[Vide Texts under 64 et seq.]

Yājñavalkya (2.72). — ‘Even a single man may ho admitted as a witness, by the consent of both parties, if he is versed in Dharma.’

Nārada (1.188). — ‘Slaves, impostors and others described as inadmissible as witnesses shall he witnesses in suits of a specially grave character.’

Nārada (1.192). — ‘By the consent of both parties, a single man may become a witness in a suit. He must be examined in public as a witness, — though he has been mentioned (in the Texts) as an incompetent witness.’

Do. (1.190-191). — ‘A woman cannot he a witness; a woman would speak falsely from want of veracity.’

VERSE 8.78

Section XII (A) - Evidence

स्वभावेनैव यद् ब्रूयुस्तद् ग्राह्यं व्यावहारिकम् ।
अतो यदन्यद् विब्रूयुर्धर्मार्थं तदपार्थकम् ॥७८॥

svabhāvenaiva yad brūyustad grāhyaṃ vyāvahārikam |
ato yadanyad vibrūyurdharmārthaṃ tadapārthakam ||78||

What the witnesses state naturally, in relation to the case, should be accepted; apart from this what they state from considerations of righteousness, is useless. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the witnesses state naturally in regard to the case should he accepted; on the other hand, what they state, not quite naturally, but ‘from considerations of righteousness’ ‘is useless’, — i.e., should not he accepted. The describing of things exactly as they were seen is what is meant by ‘natural statement what is otherwise than this, — i.e., what is stated with the motive that what is said may not cause suffering to the poor party concerned, — ‘is useless’; e.g., when one party complains — ‘I have been insulted by this person’ — and the other denies it, the witness may say — ‘yes, ho was insulted, but in joke, not through malice’; and in this case, the statement ‘the man has been insulted’ should he accepted; while the qualifying statement ‘in joke,’ — which had not been put forth by the defendant — and was made by the witness unasked (gratuitously) — need not he accepted.

‘In relation to the case’ — pertaining to the suit.

‘Useless’ — futile.

Others explain the verse as follows: — It may so happen that through shyness, a witness deposes in a halting manner, — but that alone need not be made a ground for rejecting his statement; what is to be done is that the nature of the witness should he examined by reasoning, and then it should be determined that ‘this person speaks haltingly through shyness, what he says, however, is quite true?

But the real meaning is as explained above; so much attention need not be paid to this other explanation. — (78)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Svabhāvena’ — ‘Quite naturally’ — ‘not out of compassion’ (Medhātithi, who says nothing regarding ‘depending on women’ as Buhler wrongly puts it), — ‘not out of fear and the like’ (Kullūka); — ‘the reliability or otherwise of the witness is to be ascertained after due consideration of his Svabhāva, character, and not from the manner of bis giving evidence’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi), — ‘without hesitation, quickly’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘in accordance with truth’ (Govindarāja and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 80); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 282).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śukranīti (4.5.396). — ‘One should accept the evidence of witnesses given spontaneously, not through force; after the evidence has been once given by the witness, he shall not be repeatedly cross-examined.’

VERSE 8.79 [Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses]

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

सभान्तः साक्षिणः प्राप्तानर्थिप्रत्यर्थिसंनिधौ ।
प्राड् विवाकोऽनुयुञ्जीत विधिनाऽनेन सान्त्वयन् ?? ॥७९॥

sabhāntaḥ sākṣiṇaḥ prāptānarthipratyarthisaṃnidhau |
prāḍ vivāko'nuyuñjīta vidhinā'nena sāntvayan ?? ||79||

The investigating Judge shall question the witnesses assembled in the court, in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant, gently exhorting them in the following manner. — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In the court’ — inside the court room; the compounding being in accordance with Pāṇini 2. 1.40; — those who have presented themselves at the place of the trial; should he questioned ‘in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant’ — both; — they being ‘gently exhorted’ in the manner described below, — not addressed harshly; because if addressed harshly, they would become frightened of the judge, and thereby losing the normal condition of their mind, they would he unable to recall all the details of the case; because fright always deprives people of their memory.

‘Prāḍvivāka’ Investigating ‘Judge’ is the name given to the officer appointed by the king to try cases. Though the name, in its literal significance of ‘questioning and judging’ applies to the king also, yet we find the two names used separately, in such texts as — ‘If the Minister or the Judge (Prāḍvivāka) should pervert the details of a suit, the king himself shall look into it, etc.’ (Manu. 9.234.)

In the term ‘prāḍvivāka,’ ‘prāṭ’ means one who questions, ‘pṛchati;’ it being derived from the root ‘prach’ to ‘question’ with the nominative affix ‘kvip’; the elongation of the vowel and the change into ‘ṭ’ being analogous to the case of the roots ‘vaci,’ ‘śri,’ ‘dru’ ‘śru,’ ‘pru.’ ‘Prāṭ’ is the qualifying epithet to ‘vivāka,’ which means ‘one who judges or investigates knotty legal cases’; — the nominative affix ‘ghañ’ being added in accordance with Pāṇini 3. 3. 113, and the change of ‘ca’ into ‘ka’ being in accordance with ‘Pāṇini’ 7.3.52. the term prāḍvivāka thus means the questioning or Investigating Judge. — (79)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 75) in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 18); — in

Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 198); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (33b), which explains ‘sabhāntaḥ’ as ‘in court’, and ‘anuyuñjīta’ as ‘should question.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.79-86)

Śukranīti (4.5.398-414). — ‘The witness should be interrogated, after being well-governed by oaths, teachings of Purāṇas, narration of great merits of virtue and the great sins of falsehood: — “Where, when, how, whence and what have you seen or heard, — whether written by the man himself or caused to be written by somebody, — speak truly all that you know.” The witness who gives true evidence attains happy life hereafter and unrivalled fame in this world — this is the remark of Brahmā, etc.’ (the rest as in Manu 83-85).

Nārada (1.198 and 200). — ‘After having summoned all the witnesses and hound them down firmly by an oath, the Judge shall examine them separately. They should be men of tried integrity and conversant with the circumstances of the case. By sacred texts extolling the excellence of truth and denouncing the sinfulness of falsehood, let him inspire them with deep awe, as follows — (Verses 201 to 228 — 201, 208, 209 being the same as Manu 93, 98, 99 respectively)’. — [All this is to be addressed to all witnesses; Manu reserves 89 to 101 for Śūdra witnesses only.]

Gautama (13.5). — ‘Witnesses shall not speak singly, or without being asked.’

Āpastamba (2.29.7). — ‘A person who is possessed of good qualities may be called as witness and shall answer the questions put to him, according to the truth...... after having been exhorted to be fair to both sides.’

Viṣṇu (8.24 et seq.). — ‘Let him exhort the witnesses with the following speeches — “Whatever places of torture await the killer of a Brāhmaṇa and other great criminals... those places of abode are ordained for a witness who gives false evidence; and the fruit of every virtuous act he has done, from the day of his birth to his dying day, shall he lost to him. Truth makes the sun spread his rays; Truth makes the moon shine; Truth makes the wind blow; Truth makes the earth bear all things; Truth makes waters flow; Truth makes the fire burn. The atmosphere exists through truth; so do the gods; and so do the offerings. If veracity and a thousand horse-sacrifices are weighed against each other, truth ranks even higher than a thousand horse-sacrifices. Those who, acquainted with the facts, and appointed to give evidence, stand mute, are equally criminal with, and deserve the same severe punishment as, false witnesses.” After having addressed him thus, let the King examine the witnesses in the order of their castes.’

Yājñavalkya (2.73-75). — ‘He shall address the following words to the witnesses standing near the plaintiff and defendant — “He who hears false witness goes to those regions which are reserved for people committing heinous offences, and other crimes, for incendiaries, for murderers of women and children. Whatever virtuous act you may have done during a hundred lives, understand that all that will go to the party whom, by your false evidence, you make lose the suit.”’

Baudhāyana (1.19.9 et seq.). — ‘The wise man should address an appointed witness in the following manner: — “Whatever merit thou hast acquired, etc., etc.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.32-34). — ‘Depose, O witness, according to the truth; expecting thy answers, thy ancestors hang in suspense, as to whether they shall rise or fall, etc., etc.’

VERSE 8.80

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

यद् द्वयोरनयोर्वेत्थ कार्येऽस्मिंश्चेष्टितं मिथः ।
तद् ब्रूत सर्वं सत्येन युष्माकं ह्यत्र साक्षिता ॥८०॥

yad dvayoranayorvettha kārye'smiṃśceṣṭitaṃ mithaḥ |
tad brūta sarvaṃ satyena yuṣmākaṃ hyatra sākṣitā ||80||

‘What you know of the mutual transaction between these two persons regarding this suit, — all that may you declare freely; since you are witnesses in this matter.’ — (80)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘What you know in regard to the matter of this suit, any transaction, secret or open, that may have been carried on between these two persons, — all that declare freely; since you are witnesses in this suit.

‘You are the sole authority in this matter; truth and untruth are in your hands’ — thus addressed the persons cited as witnesses become encouraged.

‘In this matter.’ — Though the text mentions this formula in its most general form, yet, in as much as it is not possible for any person to be a witness regarding all things, it follows that the subject-matter of the suit should be stated here. Because until they are informed of the details they cannot understand the question. — (80)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 75); — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 18); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (33b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.79-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.79.

VERSE 8.81

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

सत्यं साक्ष्ये ब्रुवन् साक्षी लोकान् आप्नोत्यपुष्कलान् ।
इह चानुत्तमां कीर्तिं वागेषा ब्रह्मपूजिता ॥८१॥

satyaṃ sākṣye bruvan sākṣī lokān āpnotyapuṣkalān |
iha cānuttamāṃ kīrtiṃ vāgeṣā brahmapūjitā ||81||

‘The witness, telling the truth in his evidence, attains irreproachable regions, also unsurpassable fame; such speech is honoured by Brahmā himself. — (81)’

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From this verse onward the text lays down the manner in which the witnesses are to be exhorted.

By telling the truth, the witness attains ‘irreproachable regions,’ in the shape of Heaven and the rest, which are the source of desirable results.

Or, the term ‘l oka’ may be taken in the sense of ‘caste’; the sense in that case would he that ‘he is born in a happy future life.’

In the present life also, he obtains ‘unsurpassable fame’ — renown, superior to which there is none; i.e., people bestow praise upon him.

Such — truthful — speech is honoured by Brahmā, Prajāpati, himself. — (81)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins is again wrong in saying that “this verse is omitted by Nandana.”

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 75); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (33b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 53b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.79-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.79.

VERSE 8.82

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

साक्ष्येऽनृतं वदन् पाशैर्बध्यते वारुणैर्भृशम् ।
विवशः शतमाजातीस्तस्मात् साक्ष्यं वदेद् ऋतम् ॥८२॥

sākṣye'nṛtaṃ vadan pāśairbadhyate vāruṇairbhṛśam |
vivaśaḥ śatamājātīstasmāt sākṣyaṃ vaded ṛtam ||82||

‘Stating the untruth in his evidence, he becomes firmly bound in Varuṇa’s fetters, helpless during a hundred births. One should, therefore, give true evidence.’ — (82)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse encourages the witnesses by putting before them the spiritual and temporal results following from the telling of truth; the present verso describes how results accrue from saying what is contrary to truth; and the purpose of this also is to induce the witness to tell the truth.

‘Sākṣya,’ ‘evidence,’ is the work of the witness; in that work, stating what is not true, the man becomes ‘bound’ — tormented — ‘in Varuṇa’s fetters,’ — ‘firmly’ — to a very great extent; — ‘helpless’ — rendered totally dependent on others, even in regard to the operations of speech and the eyes, — ‘during a hundred births.’

‘Varuṇa’s fetters’ are in the shape of terrible snakes or in the form of the disease of dropsy.

In order to guard against such calamities, the witness should state the truth; — such is the sense of the injunction implied by the text.

In the term ‘ājātīḥ,’ the initial ā is not the indeclinable ‘āṅ’ which denotes limit; for, if it were that or we would have the Ablative ending. Hence it is to be taken as a preposition meaning nothing; just like the preposition ‘pra’ in such words as ‘pralambate’ and the like. The case-ending also is the Accusative. What the term signifies is repetition; the meaning being that the man sutlers from dropsy repeatedly during one hundred births. — (82)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Dropsy is a disease specially attributed to Varuṇa (see Ṛgveda 7.89.1, and the story of Śunaḥśepha, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.15). The fetters of Varuṇa are mentioned as the punishment of liars in the Atharva Veda, 4.16.6.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 199); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (33b), which explains ‘śatam-ājātīḥ’ as ‘during a hundred lives’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 53b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.79-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.79.

VERSE 8.83

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

सत्येन पूयते साक्षी धर्मः सत्येन वर्धते ।
तस्मात् सत्यं हि वक्तव्यं सर्ववर्णेषु साक्षिभिः ॥८३॥

satyena pūyate sākṣī dharmaḥ satyena vardhate |
tasmāt satyaṃ hi vaktavyaṃ sarvavarṇeṣu sākṣibhiḥ ||83||

‘By truth is the witness purified, by truth does merit grow: hence the truth should be spoken by witnesses of all castes.’ — (83)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Purified’ — becomes pure; i.e., purged of other sins also. The rest is clear.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.79-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.79.

VERSE 8.84

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

आत्मैव ह्यात्मनः साक्षी गतिरात्मा तथाऽत्मनः ।
माऽवमंस्थाः स्वमात्मानं नृणां साक्षिणमुत्तमम् ॥८४॥

ātmaiva hyātmanaḥ sākṣī gatirātmā tathā'tmanaḥ |
mā'vamaṃsthāḥ svamātmānaṃ nṛṇāṃ sākṣiṇamuttamam ||84||

‘The soul itself is the soul’s witness, and the soul itself is the soul’s refuge; disregard not your soul, the best witness of man.’ — (84)

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США