Chapter XXIV. Steya (theft)

Volume III pp. 519–530

Chapter XXIV. Steya (theft)

In the Rg. there is frequent mention of taskara, stena and tāyu. In Rg. VI. 28 3 the sage¹ says ‘may the cows not disappear from us, may a thief not injure them’. In Rg. VIII 29. 6 it is said ‘Pūṣan guards the ways and knows of concealed treasures as a thief does’. From Rg X. 4 6 it appears that thieves were desperate and bound people with ropes and (from Rg I 191 5) that thieves (taskaras) appeared at night. Tāyu (thief) occurs in Rg I 50 2, IV. 38. 5, VI. 12 5 and is an Indo-Iranian worḍ The word ‘stena’ occurs in Rg. VI 28.7 and means ‘one who is a cattle-lifter’. Rg. VIII. 67 14 indicates that a stena was bound with ropes (when caught). In Rg VII. 55. 3 the dog is asked to run after a stena and a taskara, the first being probably a thief (who secretly carries away property) and the second a thief who openly carries it away. In the Vāj ² S XI. 79 (=Tai. S. IV. 1. 10 2) we have the malimlu in addition to stena and taskara. Atharvaveda IV. 3 contains charms against wolves, tigers and thieves (taskaras).

Steya is distinguished from sāhasa in Manu VIII 332, Kaut III 17, Nār. XVII. 12 and other works as stated under sāhasa below. Kāt 810 defines³ it as ‘depriving a man of his wealth either clandestinely or openly and either by night or by day’. Nār XVII 17 defines it as ‘deprivation of wealth by various means from people that are asleep, careless or intoxicated’. It may be of three kinds according to the value of the thing stolen viz. trifling (when earthen-ware, seats, cots, wood, hides, grass, beans in pods or cooked food is stolen) or middling (when the theft relates to clothes except silken ones, animals except cows and bulls, metals except gold, rice and barley), grave or high (when gold, jewels, silken cloth, women, men, cattle, elephants, horses and brāhmaṇas or temples is stolen) Vide Nār. XVII 13-16 and Yāj. II 275. Thieves are either prakāśa (open or patent) or aprakāśa (secret) acc to Manu IX 256, Br. 949 (S B E 33 p 359 v 2) Acc to Manu IX 258-260, Nār. ('pariśiṣṭa 2-3) and Br. (S B E. 33 p 360 verses 3-4) patent thieves are traders who employ false weights and balances, gamblers, quacks, bribers of sabhyas, prostitutes, those who profess to arbitrate, those who manufacture imitation articles, those who subsist by prognosticating good fortune or portents or by magic or palmistry, false witnesses &c Manu (IX 261-266) states that in order to find out such thieves the king should employ spies in various disguises at various places such as meeting halls, refreshment rooms, brothels, wineshops, theatres &c The concealed thieves are those who move about with tools for house-breaking without being observed and whose residence is not known, they are principally⁵ of nine kinds viz. one who quietly relieves a man of his money when the latter is attending to something else, a house-breaker, a highway robber (who robs travellers), a cut-purse, one who steals (or kidnaps) a woman or a man, cattle, horses and other animalṣ Yāj. II 266-268 and Nār. (pariśiṣṭa 9-12) indicate the various ways in which thieves may be detected and caught viz by the (police) officers recovering a part of the booty from a man or by tracing foot-steps, or by seizing one who has been often found to be a thief, or by finding out that the man suspected cannot state his place of residence; and they recommend that on suspicion others may be caught, if on being questioned they attempt to conceal their caste or name or if they are found addicted to gambling, wine and women or if their mouth becomes dry or their voice changes or if they spend lavishly though they have no ostensible means of earning, or those who sell lost or second-hand goods or who move about in disguise or who are found making inquiries about others' houses or wealth The Mit. on Yaj. ⁶ II. 268 quotes Nār and gives the warning that the king must carefully examine whether the man caught is really the thief and should not convict merely on suspicion, since even an innocent man may have stolen property near him or betray some of the signs noted above. When pro-perty alleged to be stolen is found with a man, it may be that the articles came to his hands from another's hand or he may have taken it up when it lay unclaimed on the ground or he may have taken it as a thief; liars often have the appearance of honest men and nīce i caṇa (Nār I 71)⁷ Nārada's dictum (I. 42) that one who is not a thief may be held to be a thief as in the case of Māṇḍavya has already been quoted above (p 357n 349). Vide Manu IX 270 (= Matsya 227. 166) cited on p 355 above When a person is seized on suspicion of being a thief he could not be acquitted on his mere denial of the offence He had to prove innocence by ordinary evidence (such as proof that he was elsewhere when the theft was committed) or ordeals (Yāj. II. 269) The general rule about the punishment of patent thieves was that the punishment was to be proportionate to the lightness or gravity of the crime and not to their wealth (Vyāsa)⁸ Br. (S B E 33 p 361 verses 10 ff) quoted in Par. M. III pp. 439-440 and V P pp 387-88 prescribes various punishments for parti-cular kinds of patent thieves e g. sabhyas giving wrong deci-sions (for bribes) or those who deceive by betraying the trust imposed in them are to be banished Manu IX 292 (= Matsya 227 184-185) holds that the goldsmith is the worst of all deceitful persons (kuntakas) and if he is found committing fraud his limbs should be cut off bit by bit.

As regards the concealed thieves the texts lay down special rules Nār XVII 21 extends to theft of the three kinds men-tioned above the same punishments that are awarded in the three kinds of sāhasa Manu VIII 323 prescribes death sentence for kidnapping men of good family and particularly women and for theft of costly jewels; while Vyāsa prescribes death by burning on red-hot iron bed for kidnapping women and mutilation of hands and feet for kidnapping a maṇ Yāj. II 273 provides impalement for those who confine others as captives, for those who steal horses and elephants and who strike others with violence, while Manu IX. 280 prescribes death for those who break royal store-houses and armoury, the inner shrine in a temple and who steal horses, chariots and elephantṣ For him who commits theft by housebreaking at night Manu (1X 276) and Br. (S B E 33 p 361, verse 17) provide impalement ⁹ after cutting off his handṣ Yāj. II. 274, Manu IX 277, Viṣṇu Dh S. V 136 prescribe for the cut-purse the punishment of the cutting of the thumb and index finger for the first offence, the cutting of the hand and foot if it is the second offence and death if he repeats the same offence a third time. Not only was the thief made to undergo punishment but he was also liable to make good the loss of property to the person robbed (Manu VIII 320, Yāj. II 270, Viṣṇu Dh S V. 89, Nār. parisista 21). According to Nār (pariśista 22-24) for thefts of articles of small value the fine was five times their price, while Manu (VIII 326-329) said it was twice as much as the price. Gaut XII 12-14, ¹⁰ Manu VIII. 337-338, Nār. (pariśista 51-52) lay down that the fine for theft is higher in the case of the higher castes i. e. if the śūdra thief is fined eight times of the value of the article stolen, the vaiśya, kṣatriya and brāhmaṇa thieves were respectively fined 16, 32 and 64 times the price of the article, as each is deemed to know better owing to his higher status and culture. Manu VIII. 380 lays down the general rule that a brāhmaṇa offender was not to be killed whatever the offence might be but he was to be banished from the country allowing him to take with him all his wealth. But there were other provisions and exceptions also. Kat ¹¹ (823) states that the school of the Mānavas declared that thieves caught with the stolen things on them should be at once banished but that the school of Gautama disapproved of this mode, since it is condemned because it entails loss (reduction) of people in the country The V. R. p. 332 explains this verse as referring to a learned brāhmaṇa. Two more verses of Kāṭ. (824-825) are quoted by V. R. p. 332 and V. C. p 92 the first of which provides that a brāhmaṇa who is not learned whether caught with booty or not should be branded (with the appropriate signs) and deprived of all his property, provided his guilt is brought home with certainty and the second provides that a brāhmaṇa thief who is neither learned nor rich but is strongly built should be kept under guard with fetters on his feet, should be fed on meagre food and made to do hard labour for the king till his death Gaut. XII 46-48, Nār. (pariśisṭa 13-14), Manu IX. 271 and 278, Kāṭ (827) hold that the punishment for those who knowingly give food, fire (when they feel cold), water or asylum to thieves or who receive or purchase stolen property or who conceal them are to be punished like the thieves themselves ¹² Yāj. II. 276 prescribes the highest amercement for any one who knowingly gives help to a thief or murderer in the above ways or by directions or by supplying tools or money wherewith to go to a place for committing the offence.

In certain cases a person could take without being liable to be punished as a thief certain things belonging to another even if he had not the latter's permission Gaut XII. ¹³ 25, Manu VIII 339 (= Matsya 227. 112-113 ), Yāj. II. 166 allow a person of the three higher castes to take grass, fuel-sticks, flowers of trees and plants for feeding cows and for the worship of fire from any place as if they belonged to himself and also fruits of trees that were not enclosed In such cases he would not be liable to a fine nor does he incur sin (Kullūka on Manu VIII. 339). A smṛti passage stating that if a man takes grass or fuel or flowers or fruits without permission deserves to have his hand cut off is explained by the Mit. (on Yaj 166), Aparārka p. 774 and others as meant to apply to persons other than dvijas or as meant to refer to a case where they are taken by a person who has really no difficulty in securing these or where these are not taken for the use of cows or for worship. This matter had been a subject of discussion from ancient timeṣ Ap. Dh S 9⁵⁹ (I 10 28 1–5) contains a discussion from which it appears that Kautsa, Hārita, Kāṇva and Puṣkarasādi were of the opinion that whatever (however trifling or in whatever circumstances) a man took without the consent of the owner, he became a thief, but Vārṣyāyaṇī held that there were exceptions to this rule viz. that owners should not forbid the taking (of a small quantity of) grain in pods (such as mudga or māṣa) or grass for bulls yoked to carts, but that if large quantities even of these were taken there would be theft. Śānti 165.11–13, Manu XI. 16–18 and Yāj. III. 43 state that when a brāhmaṇa or other person has fasted for three days because he has had no grain with him, he may on the 4th day take grain for one day's meal from any- where he can get, whether from a threshing floor or from a field or a house, and that if the owner questioned he should declare to him the reason, but a person of a lower caste should not in this way take grain belonging to one of a higher caste, unless the latter pursues a sinful course or does not perform the duties of his caste. Vyāsa quoted by Sṃ C. I. p. 175 allows a man to commit even theft, when he is in distress for food, first from a person of a lower caste, then from one of the same caste and then from one of a higher caste Manu VIII. 341 (= Matsya 227. 110, 114), Nār (prakirņaka 39 ), Śaṅkha and Kāt (822A ) state that a traveller whose food has run out may take from another's land without being liable to punishment two sugarcane stalks, two mūlakas ( esculent roots), two cucumbers or melons, five mangoes or pomegranate fruit. and a handful of dates and of such corn as rice, wheat, gram &c.⁹⁶¹ Sāhasa (crimes of violence). Manu VIII 332, Kaut III 17 and Nār. XVII 1, Yaj II. 230, Kat. (795-796) define sāhasa⁹⁶² as any act which is done with violence in defiance of or in spite of the presence of royal officers or guards or people. The word sāhasa is a derivative from 'sahas' meaning 'force' (Nār XVII 1). Sometimes it is distinguished from theft (as in Manu VIII. 332, Kaut III 17 and Nār. XVII 12) by saying that theft consists in depriving a person of his wealth stealthily (without force), while in sāhasa there is the use of force or violence⁹⁶³. Nār. XVII. 2 and Br (S B. E. vol 33 p. 359 verse 1) state that sāhasa⁹⁶⁴ is of four kinds viz manslaughter, theft, violence to the wives of others, and the two kinds of pārusya (treated as one head). Although these topics can be comprehended under sāhasa, they are generally dealt with separately in the smṛtis and digests as a matter of convenience and in order to provide heavier punishment for crimes of violence⁹⁶⁵, since a man guilty of a crime of violence is a worse sinner than one guilty of abuse, theft or assault (Manu VIII. 245 and Mit. on Yaj. II. 230) and Manu VIII 244 enjoins upon the king not to tolerate for a moment a man guilty of violence The V May. (text p 2) says that in differentiating steya from sāhasa the maxim of ‘cows’ and ‘bulls’ is applicable⁹⁶⁶.

Sāhasa is divided by Nār. XVII 3-6 and Br (S B E 33 p 363 verse 24) into three varieties, viz. the lowest (destruction, abuse and trampling of fruits, roots, water, agricultural imple- ments), middling (destruction &c of clothes, food and drink, household utensils), highest (killing with weapons or poison, violence to others’ wives and whatever causes pain to sentient beings). These three kinds are respectively punished with the three kinds of punishments described above (pp. 393-94). The principal crimes included under sāhasa in its narrow sense are homicide, rape and robbery. Rape will be dealt with under strī saṅgrahaṇa. Br.⁹⁶⁷ states the general rule that one guilty of murder by violence should be punished with death and not with fines (S B. E 33 p. 363 v 29). To this the brāhmaṇa offender was an exception (Manu IX. 241), who was only to be banisheḍ Manu IX. 242 introduces another exception viz. persons other than brāhmaṇas when guilty of the great sins (specified in IX 235) through negligence should be only deprived of all their property but if they murder a man inten- tionally then only are they to be sentenced to death. Manu IX. 232 and Viṣṇu Dh S V 9-11 provide the punishment of death for those who fabricate false royal edicts, or who tamper with the loyalty of the elements of the State or who kill women, children and brāhmaṇaṣ Baud Dh S I 10. 20-21, Br and Vyāsa prescribe⁹⁶⁸ that if a brāhmaṇa is killed by a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, the king should sentence III ] the offender to death in various ways and confiscate all his property, but if a man kills another of his own caste or of a lower caste then the king may punish the offender with some punishment appropriate to the crime and the strength of the offender In IV. 11 Kaut. provides sentences of death in various ways for murder following ancient śāstras, but remarks that if murderers have not been guilty of cruelty they should simply be sentenced to death without torture or the like²⁴. One special rule deserves notice Gaut 22 12, Āp Dh. S. I. 9. 24 6-9, Manu XI. 87, Vas 20 34, Yaj III 251 prescribe the same prāyaścitta for murdering a brāhmaṇa woman who is an ātreyī as for one who kills a brāhmaṇa male. The different meanings of ‘ātreyī’ given from ancient times are noted below²⁵. Texts like Āp I 9 24. 1-5, Gaut XXII prescribe different prāya- ścittas for murder depending upon the castes and sexes of the murderer and the murdered These will be briefly dealt with under prāyaścitta later on In certain cases acc. to Manu VIII 291–292, Yāj II 298–299, Kaut IV 13, though death or injury to persons or loss of property results, no punishment was pres- cribed viz when the nose-string of bulls yoked to a cart snaps, when the yoke breaks, when the cart swerves on one side owing to the unevenness of the ground, when the axle or wheel breaks or when the leather thongs with which the several parts of the cart are tied give way, or when the rope cast round the necks of bulls or the reins break or when in spite of the driver loudly calling upon a person to move aside from the way an accident occurs But Manu VIII 293, 294 (=Matsya 227. 95-96) pro- vide that where through the want of skill of the driver know- ingly engaged by a master the cart is overturned and injury is caused, the master should be fined 200 paṇas, but if the driver employed be known to be skilful, then when injury is caused the driver should be fined (and not the employer) Further if the driver, though seeing that the road is blocked by cattle or other carts, rashly drives and kills men and animals he should be punished (Manu VIII. 295) It is stated by Nār (pārusya 32, S B. E vol 33 p 212) that the father is not liable for his son’s offence, nor is the owner of a horse, dog or ape liable to punishment (for injury caused by any of these) provided they are not set up (to do harm) by the owner. If a driver kills a man by rash or negligent driving he is to be punished like a thief, if he kills any one of the larger animals (such as a cow, a horse, a camel or elephant) the punishment would be half of the preceding, if he kills one of the inferior animals, the fine would be two hundred Kaut III 19, Manu (VIII 285), Yāj. II 227–229 and Viṣṇu Dh S. V 55-59 prescribe graduated fines for the destruction of trees, plants and branches, flowers and, fruits according to their usefulness and sanctity The smṛtis made a distinction as regards punishments between crimes of violence and crimes due to negligence or mistake For example, Manu VIII 264 (=Matsya 227 30) prescribes a fine of 500 paṇas for depriving a man of his house, garden or field by threats of violence, but only prescribes a fine of two hundred if a man deprives another of his house &c by mistake Various rules were laid down about inciters or abettors Yaj II. 231 and Kaut ²⁶ III. 17 prescribe for the man who incites another to crimes of violence double the punishment to be inflicted on the perpetrator himself and four times for one who incites another by assuring him ‘I shall give as much money as will be required’. Kāt. (798) and Br ²⁷ (S B E 33 p 363 very 31 ) prescribe that if several violently beat a man to death, he who gives the fatal blow on a vital part is declared to be the murderer and is to suffer the full punishment for murder. Kāt (832-834)²⁸ and Br. (S B E. 33 p. 364 verse 32) provide that he who commences a crime of violence, who is a helper, who gives advice as to the way (in which sāhasa is to be carried out), who gives refuge (asylum) to the offender or supplies weapons, who gives food to wrongdoers, who incites (offenders) to put up a fight, who shows how the person (killed) is to be destroyed, who connives (at the commission of an offence), who exposes the faults (of the person killed), who gives his approval (to the offence), who though able does not forbid or prevent the commission of the offence—all these are (practically) perpetrators of the crime and the king should award punishment accord-ing to their ability and their guilt. Vide also Ap Dh. S. II. 11 29. 1 ²⁹ For those who begin an offence or abet its commission Br (S B. E. 33 p. 364 verse 32) prescribes half the punishment prescribed for the wrongdoer.³⁰ Yaj. (II. 232-242) enumerates several kinds of offences as allied to sāhasa and prescribes punishments therefor, such as breaking a house that is closed under seal, causing harm to neighbours and kulakaṣ ( one's agnates ), abandoning one's parents or sons or brothers or sisters even though they be not patita, sexual intercourse with a widow, ( intentional ) defilement of the higher castes by cāṇḍālas, making counterfeit coins or false weights and measures, giving quack medicines to royal officers or other men These are all passed over here.