MUMBAI: No doubt, a dog or cat is treated as a child or a family member by its owners, but basic biology tells us they are not human beings and hence a person cannot be booked under Indian Penal Code sections 279 and 337 for rash driving and negligent acts endangering human life for causing a dog’s death, said the Bombay high court. The HC also questioned invoking of IPC section 429 relating to causing loss and damage to a person or property in the case.
The court quashed the FIR against an engineering student who, while riding a bike, hit a stray dog killing it. The court rapped the police for its investigation and directed the state government to pay costs of Rs 20,000 to the student, adding that the costs would be recovered from the salary of the concerned officers responsible for lodging the FIR and approving filing of a chargesheet. Manas Godbole (20), an engineering student who was doing a part time job as food delivery boy, was riding a bike on April 11, 2020 when he accidentally hit a stray dog that was crossing the road.
On the complaint of a dog lover, Marine Drive police registered an offence under IPC sections 279, 337, 429, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Within a few months, a chargesheet was filed against Godbole before the 64th Metropolitan Magistrate court. Godbole filed a petition challenging application of sections 279, 337 and 429. The petitioner argued that as the case stands, no offence as alleged could be made out. “Thus, legally speaking the said sections will have no application to the facts in hand, this essential ingredient necessary to constitute the offences, being amiss. The said sections do not recognize and make an offence any injury caused otherwise than to human beings. Thus, insofar as the injury/death caused to the pet/animal is concerned, the same would not constitute offences under Sections 279 & 337 of the IPC,” the HC said.
As far as application of section 429 of the IPC is concerned, the same will also have no application, in as much as, the essential ingredients (i.e. causing loss and damage to a person or the property), warranting application of this Section, are amiss, it added.
The court quashed the FIR against an engineering student who, while riding a bike, hit a stray dog killing it. The court rapped the police for its investigation and directed the state government to pay costs of Rs 20,000 to the student, adding that the costs would be recovered from the salary of the concerned officers responsible for lodging the FIR and approving filing of a chargesheet. Manas Godbole (20), an engineering student who was doing a part time job as food delivery boy, was riding a bike on April 11, 2020 when he accidentally hit a stray dog that was crossing the road.
On the complaint of a dog lover, Marine Drive police registered an offence under IPC sections 279, 337, 429, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Within a few months, a chargesheet was filed against Godbole before the 64th Metropolitan Magistrate court. Godbole filed a petition challenging application of sections 279, 337 and 429. The petitioner argued that as the case stands, no offence as alleged could be made out. “Thus, legally speaking the said sections will have no application to the facts in hand, this essential ingredient necessary to constitute the offences, being amiss. The said sections do not recognize and make an offence any injury caused otherwise than to human beings. Thus, insofar as the injury/death caused to the pet/animal is concerned, the same would not constitute offences under Sections 279 & 337 of the IPC,” the HC said.
As far as application of section 429 of the IPC is concerned, the same will also have no application, in as much as, the essential ingredients (i.e. causing loss and damage to a person or the property), warranting application of this Section, are amiss, it added.