Chapter 24

Means of Proof, and Deliberation on their Relative Strength

A document, witnesses, and possession are known as the three kinds of evidence. A trace or indication is reasoning, and divine ordeals are poison and the like. // K_214 //

Even when the plaint is in writing, the plaintiff must establish it word for word and in its entirety in the third stage by means of proof. // K_215 //

The matter of the suit is called that which is to be proven, and the proof is called the means of proof. It is to be known as two-fold: divine and human. Human proof is a document, witnesses, and the like; divine proof is held to be ordeals of water and the like. // K_216 //

When witnesses are available, a wise man should avoid a divine ordeal. One who employs a divine ordeal when witnesses are available is defeated on that account. // K_217 //

If one party proposes human proof and the other proposes a divine ordeal, the king should accept the human proof in that case, not the divine ordeal. // K_218 //

If human proof is available, even if it covers only a part of the case, it should be accepted, and not a divine ordeal, even if it is complete, among litigating men. // K_219 //

Divine proof is of five kinds, and human proof is held to be of three kinds. // K_220 //

He who, abandoning a stronger means of proof, relies on a weaker one, shall not get that stronger proof again after the victory has been determined by the assessors. // K_221 //

One should reject a proof that, abandoning the essential point, seeks to establish many unessential ones, being devoid of substance. One should reject from afar a proof that would establish both sides. // K_222 //

A divine ordeal is not prescribed when witnesses are available. In disputes where a document exists, there should be neither a divine ordeal nor witnesses. // K_223 //

A document is invalidated by time and also when it is flawed according to legal principles. In a case without a document or witnesses, one should direct a divine ordeal. In a matter provable by divine ordeal, one should not employ human proof or a document. // K_224 //

For whatever custom has been declared for guilds, corporations, assemblies, and the like, the proof for it is a document, not a divine ordeal or witnesses. // K_225 //

In matters of doorways, rights of way, enjoyment of property, watercourses, and the like, possession alone is weightier, not a document or witnesses. // K_226 //

In cases of gifts given and not given, in a dispute between servants and a master, in matters relating to sale and acquisition, and when one does not pay the price after buying... // K_227 //

...and when a dispute arises in gambling and prize-fighting, witnesses are declared to be the means of proof, not a divine ordeal or a document. // K_228 //

In a proceeding that has commenced concerning violence, in cases of assault and verbal injury, and in matters arising from force, the proof is witnesses or a divine ordeal. // K_229 //

For those who commit secret acts of violence, examination by divine ordeals is proper, as is examination by means of reasoning, signs, gestures, appearance, speech, eyes, and actions of men. // K_230 //

In all the most serious crimes of violence, Bhṛgu says one should ascertain the truth by means of a divine ordeal, even when good witnesses are present. // K_231 //

Where the witnesses are of equal standing, one should ascertain the truth there also by divine ordeals. In disputes involving a risk to life, if a litigant resorts to a divine ordeal even when witnesses are available, one should not question the witnesses there. // K_232 //

In a case of debt, a document, witnesses, or traces of reasoning and the like, or a divine ordeal, are prescribed for the welfare of the people. // K_233 //

A demand, a reminder at the proper time, and likewise a trace of reasoning, and thirdly, an oath—by these, one should progressively establish a debt. // K_234 //

Even when repeatedly demanded, if he does not obstruct that demand three, four, or five times, he should then pursue the matter. // K_235 //

If the demand is denied, one should proceed with traces of reasoning, based on country, time, the nature of the transaction, its measure, the procedure, and so on. // K_236 //

When reasoning is also insufficient, one should decide by oaths alone, which depend on the value, time, and strength of the case, such as by fire, water, or good deeds. // K_237 //

Where there is a fraudulent document, if it has been brought to the king's notice, the king, seated on the seat of justice, should verify it there by a divine ordeal. // K_238 //

In cases of verbal assault and disputes over land, one should not employ a divine ordeal. // K_239 //

In disputes concerning immovable property, one may employ divine ordeals. One should establish the matter with witnesses, a written document, and also with possession. // K_240 //

In all disputes, the king should always make a decision by means of evidence, by reason, or by a divine ordeal. // K_241 //

A document, witnesses, and possession are held to be the three kinds of evidence. The wise know inference as reason, and also as logical argument. // K_242 //

In the absence of a preceding one, a case is decided by the succeeding one, and never otherwise, by the means of proof specified by the plaintiff: possession, document, and witnesses. // K_243 //

One should never subject the plaintiff to a divine ordeal. A divine ordeal should be administered to the accused by those skilled in ordeals. // K_244 //

In a case of denial, it is four-footed, as also in a counter-claim. In a plea of former judgment, it is known to be so, and in an admission, it is two-footed. // K_245 //

Defeat is of two kinds: that stated by the other party and that stated by oneself. The former is of ten kinds, while the latter is held to be of one kind. // K_246 //

Transition to another dispute, contradiction between the plaint and the reply, finding fault with one's own proof, and substantiating the other's statement... // K_247 //

...failure to specify the place, specification of an improper place or time, suborning of witnesses, and animosity in one's statement. // K_248 //