व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

84 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. II. 3. 7-9
M. p. 25 ll. 6-28
Kātyāyana says ¹
If one of the subscribing witnesses that are cited by a disputant deposes
against the others all of them become no witnesses ² ( i e become useless or
incompetent )
Nārada ( p 89 v 188 ) declares that even such ( persons as are above declared
to be incompetent witnesses ) are in certain cases allowable as proper
witnesses
Those even, who have been mentioned ( in verses 178-187 of Nārada s
ṛṇādāna chapter ) as incompetent witnesses such as slaves, impostors and
the like become ( competent ) witnesses, having regard to the gravity of
the matter ( in dispute )
In the case of the absence ( of competent witnesses ) Manu ( 8 70 ) says
In the absence ( of competent witnesses ) evidence may be given even by
a woman, by a minor by an old man by a pupil or kinsman by a slave or
hired servant
Yājñavalkya ( II. 72 ) says
In ( charges of ) adultery theft assault and slander and in all
offences attended with force ( such as manslaughter ) any person may be
a witness.
In this passage, ³ although adultery and the like fall under the category of
sāhasa they are separately mentioned in order to refer to such adultery and
other offences as are clandestinely committed Uś'anas says
A slave a blind man a deaf person a leper a woman a minor an old
man and the like even these are regarded as ( competent ) witnesses in
sāhasa ( offences due to force ) when they are not concerned ( in the
matter to be tried )

• Anabhisambaddhāh means when they are not partial ( to one side )
  Bṛhaspati ( p 302 v 24 ) says
  A litigant may point out faults in the witnesses cited ( by the opponent)
  to prove the matter in dispute if the faults really exist A litigant
  attributing faultsto witnesses who are faultless is liable to pay a fine
  equal ( to the matter in dispute ) ⁴

1. The word likhitānām and nirdiṣṭānām may also mean that are put down as
   witnesses in the plaint or reply and are cited as witnesses at the time of proof ( kriyā )
2. Vide notes to V M. p 70 for detailed explanation. This rule of Kātyāyana was
   to apply only where the witnesses that give conflicting testimony were equal in number or
   equal in merit. Compare Nārada ( ṛṇādāna 160 ). Vide notes to Kāt. v 8-2
   3 Compare a similar remark above p 8.
   4 This would apply only where it is possible to set a monry value on the subject matter
   of dispute. Hence Aparārka and Vīr explain it as meaning 'the fine imposed on a false witness
   P 33 ( text )