Animal sacrifice is a deeply rooted practice in the Sanatan religious tradition, with origins in ancient Vedic rites. Beyond the Vedas, key scriptures—including the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and various Puranas—reference such sacrifices as part of ritualistic practices. Yet, in discussing the tradition of animal sacrifice, opponents often turn to verses from the Kalika Purana to critique its legitimacy, particularly highlighting references to narbali (human sacrifice) to cast doubt on the classical practice of animal offerings.

However, a closer and more nuanced reading of the 67th chapter of the Kalika Purana reveals a different intention. While it does address capital punishment, it does so within the strict context of justice, not ritual sacrifice. In this text, the death penalty is presented as a consequence for criminal acts or treason among vanquished enemies, with only the king holding the authority to sanction such punishment. The Kalika Purana states that under royal directive, princes, amatyas (ministers), secretaries, and souptikas (special aides) could carry out these sentences discreetly, often under the cover of night and in the presence of only a select few.

Moreover, the Kalika Purana sternly warns against any human sacrifices conducted without the explicit permission of the king, deeming such acts a grievous sin punishable by eternal damnation. In cases of national unrest or wartime necessity, royal agents may, by command, execute judgments to preserve the peace and stability of the land. Nevertheless, it is emphasized that only those acting with the king’s blessing—namely, princes, amatyas, secretaries, and souptikas—are entrusted with this grave responsibility, underscoring the profound respect and restraint with which capital punishment was approached in this text.

राजपुत्रस्तथामात्यः सचिवः सौप्तिकादयः।
दद्युरनरबलिं भूप सम्पत्त्या विभवाय च।
नृपाननुमते मर्त्तं दत्त्वा पापमवाप्नुयात्।
उपप्लुवे रणे वापि यथेच्छं वितरेन्नरः।
यः कश्चिद्राजपुरुषो नान्यत्तपि कदाचन॥ (कालिकापुराण: 67.116-118)

\"The princes, amatyas (ministers), secretaries, and souptikas (royal aides) are entrusted with performing human sacrifices, conducted solely for the protection of the king’s wealth and domain. Should they proceed with such a sacrifice without the king’s explicit consent, they would incur a grievous sin of the highest order. Yet, in times of upheaval or during the throes of war, royal men may, under the direst necessity, perform these rites at their discretion. Nonetheless, only those explicitly permitted—the princes, amatyas, secretaries, and souptikas—hold the authority to conduct such sacrifices, strictly under the king’s sanction.\"

The Kalika Purana and the Tantras proclaim that no one but the king holds the authority to execute or punish an individual. As stated in the Yamalavachana cited in the Shyamarahasya, the power to sanction narbali (human sacrifice) rests solely with the king, and none may assume this right independently.

राजा नरबलिं दद्यात् नान्योऽपि परमेश्वरी।

In ancient times, the death penalty was often carried out by more direct methods, such as beheading or impalement, which were widespread practices in many parts of the world, including India. Before execution, the condemned individual was typically bathed and underwent various religious rites, preparing them for the final act. This echoes practices observed with modern death-row convicts, where certain rituals of respect or final rites are still observed in many countries, including India.

According to scriptural traditions, the king alone had the authority to enact capital punishment, which was considered a form of expiation for the condemned. By delivering punishment, the king symbolically freed the criminal from the sin that had tainted them. To ensure full redemption, the individual was sacrificed as an offering to the gods. Notably, it was the king himself—not a priest or any other official—who performed the ritual of offering the sacrificial blood. He would personally collect it in an earthen vessel, emphasizing his role as both ruler and spiritual custodian of justice.

रुधिराणि प्रदद्यात्तु भूतिकामो नरोत्तमः।
नरस्य तु सदा रक्तं माहेये तैसजेऽथ बा।
दद्यात्तन्नरपतिस्तस्तु न पत्रादौ कदाचन॥  (कालिकापुराण: 67.44-45)

\"A King should always offer the human blood in a metalic or earthen vessel and never on any account in a vessel made of leaves etc.\"

Since only the king is authorized to enact capital punishment, no individual of any caste—whether Brahmin, Shudra, or otherwise—has the right to carry out such a sentence. According to scriptures, if a Brahmin were to perform sacrifices involving lions, tigers, or human beings, he would face severe karmic consequences. Such actions would condemn him to a dreadful hell, bringing about a life marked by suffering and misfortune. His lifespan would be shortened, he would be plagued by disease, and he would find neither happiness nor prosperity in life.

सिंहं व्याघ्रं नरं चापि स्वगात्ररुधिरं तथा।
न दद्यात् ब्राह्मणो मद्यं महादेव्यै कदाचन॥
सिंहं व्याघ्रं नरं दत्त्वा ब्राह्मणो नरकं व्रजेत्।
इहापि स्यात् स हीनायुः सुखसौभाग्यवर्जितः॥
स्वगात्ररुधिरं दद्यात् चात्मबाध्यामवाप्नुयात्।
मद्यं दत्त्वा ब्राह्मणस्तु ब्राह्मण्यादेव हीयते॥   (कालिकापुराण: 67.48-51)

A Brahmana should never offer a lion or a tiger, or a man and also the blood from his own body and spirituous liquor to the great goddess Durga. If a brahmana sacrifices either a lion or a tiger, or a man he goes to hell; and lives but a short period of life in this world suffering mystery and misfortune. Should a brahamana offer blood drawn from his body he becomes guilty of killing a brahamana. If a brahamana offers intoxicating liquor to the goddess loses his Brahmin quality or Brahamanattya.

न ब्राह्मणं बलिं दद्यात् चाण्डालमपि पार्थिवः।
नोत्सृष्टं द्विजदेवेभ्यो भूपतेस्तनयं तथा।
रणेन विजितं दद्यात् तनयं रिपुभूभृतः॥  (कालिकापुराण: 67.101-102)

A king would never offer a Brahmin, a Shudra, or even a prince as a sacrifice. However, if the son of an enemy king is defeated in battle and taken captive, he may be sacrificed or executed as an act of national defense. This distinction underscores the king\'s duty to uphold social hierarchy while prioritizing the protection and stability of the kingdom in times of conflict.

If a king unjustly sacrifices an innocent person, he invites his own ruin. It is believed that the severed head of a victim offered in narbali (human sacrifice) will soon speak a curse that manifests. Should the victim cry out in great anger against the injustice at the moment of death, the wrath unleashed would lead to the kingdom\'s downfall, bringing destruction upon the king who commanded the sacrificial act.

This underscores the grave responsibility and the sacred boundaries surrounding the practice, cautioning rulers against arbitrary or unjust executions.

हसति छिन्नशीर्षं चेष्णारं स्यात् तु रिपुक्षयः।
श्रीवृद्धिरायुषो वृद्धिः सदा दातुरसंशयः।
यद्यद्वाक्यं निगदति तथा भवति चाचिरात्।
हूँकाराद्राज्यहानिः स्यात् श्लेष्मस्राबाच्च पञ्चता॥  (कालिकापुराण: 67.134-137)

It is believed, without doubt, that if the severed head of a human sacrifice laughs, the sacrificer’s enemies will be destroyed, and his wealth (Lakshmi) and longevity (Paranavayu) will increase. The words spoken by the sacrificed head are thought to swiftly come to fruition. However, should the victim scream in anguish at the moment of death, the sacrificer\'s kingdom will fall; if the severed head discharges phlegm, it is seen as a sign foretelling the death of the sacrificer himself.

This reflects the solemn and fearful reverence surrounding such acts, underscoring the potential consequences of injustice or ritual impurity in sacrificial rites.

Dr. Kushal Baran Chakravarty (Translated by Diganta Howlader)