Dogs and Cats Are Not Human: The Bombay High Court has ruled that when an animal is the victim, Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes reckless driving and endangering life, does not apply.
On the basis of this, the Bombay High Court dismissed the police report (FIR) filed against a Swiggy delivery guy who unintentionally ran over a stray dog while doing a food delivery.
The State Government must further deduct the petitioner’s fees of Rs. 20,000 from the salaries of the officers responsible for filing the FIR and later approving the filing of the chargesheet in order to comply with the court’s additional decision.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan’s division bench ruled that although animal lovers think of their pets as children, they are not human beings.
Ruling of Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that when an animal is the victim, Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes reckless driving and endangering life, does not apply.
On the basis of this, the Bombay High Court dismissed the police report (FIR) filed against a Swiggy delivery guy who unintentionally ran over a stray dog while doing a food delivery.
The State Government must further deduct the petitioner’s fees of $20,000 from the salaries of the officers responsible for filing the FIR and later approving the filing of the chargesheet in order to comply with the court’s additional decision.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan’s division bench ruled that although animal lovers think of their pets as children, they are not human beings.
According to the Court, Sections 279 and 337 do not recognise or penalise any injury that was not brought about by a human. As a result, Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code would not consider the harm or death of the pet / animal to be an offence.
The petitioner-applicant was on his way to deliver a food box when the incident occurred, and he was 18 years old at the time, according to the case’s circumstances. In Mumbai’s posh Marine Drive neighbourhood, the complainant was seen feeding stray dogs on the streets. The applicant’s motorcycle abruptly collided with the dog, inflicting injuries and ultimately causing death.
Also Read: US: First US winter storm of 2023 brings snow, sleet and tornado warnings
The candidate was hurt in the incident as well after falling.
The applicant, who was then pursuing his Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication, was then the target of a complaint that was made by the complainant.
In addition to Sections 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 11A and B of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the police also filed a First Information Report (FIR) against him.
The petitioner was riding his bike and attempted to deliver a food parcel when the dog crossed the road. The Bench recognised that the petitioner had no intention of killing the dog.
The bench noted, “The prosecution presents no evidence that the petitioner exceeded the speed limit on the road in question. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, causing the petitioner’s bike to skid due to sudden braking, and as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries on his person in the said incident, and the dog was injured and later died as a result of the same.“
The judges conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences listed in the FIR and that the FIR cannot be upheld in court.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER