The Bombay High Court has quashed FIR under Section 279, 337 IPC against Swiggy Delivery Boy for killing a dog while rash driving and observed that provisions of the Indian Penal Code only concerns human beings and not animals.
The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan remarked that while owners may treat dogs as their children but they aren’t human beings and therefore endangering their lives won't attract penal provisions.
Brief Facts of the Case
During one night of the national lockdown in 2020, the petitioner-delivery boy was on his duty when he allegedly hit a dog who later died. The complainant alleged that the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. his bike hit a street dog which was walking on the street, thereby injuring the dog. She alleged that the dog got injured and fell unconscious and the petitioner’s bike skid about 40 meters and the petitioner also fell down and got injured. Pursuant to the said incident, the complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR, as against the petitioner alleging the aforesaid offences.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-delivery boy was driving within the speed-limit when suddenly a stray dog came in the front and accidently got hit. He further submitted that in an attempt to save the dog, the petitioner suddenly applied brakes of his bike and veered to the side, however, unfortunately the dog also moved to the same side, and that in the process, the petitioner fell down and the dog sustained injuries and subsequently passed away.
Relying on State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC, he contended that no offences as alleged is made out against the petitioner.
High Court's Observation
The Court at the outset, after persual of the charges levelled, stated that none will apply to the present case as they only concern 'human beings'.
"As far as, Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it speaks about whoever drives any vehicle on any public way in a manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. As far as Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the said section also speaks about endangering human life. No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings. Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to acts endangering human life, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. 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 being."
Insofar as the injury/death caused to the pet / animal is concerned, the same would not constitute offences under Section 279, 337 IPC, the Court clarified.
As far as application of Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court said, the same will also have no application, inasmuch as, the essential ingredients (i.e. causing loss and damage to a person or the property), warranting application of this Section, are amiss.
As the incident took place during the lockdown restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no intent whatsoever to commit the said offence, it added.
Analysing application of Section 11(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Court opined that in the facts, even taken at its face value, the same would have no application.
"As far as, Section 11(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is concerned, the same would also not apply having regard to the manner in which, the incident has taken place. Clearly, there was no intent whatsoever of the petitioner to cause the death of the dog which intersected the road when the petitioner was on his bike, on way to deliver a food parcel. Nothing is shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, as a result of which, the petitioner’s bike due to sudden braking, skidded and as such the petitioner sustained injuries on his person in the said incident and the dog got injured and later succumbed to the same."
The Court conlcuded that there has been non-application of mind by the Police in registering the FIR as no offence is made out.
It thus accordingly allowed the petition.
CASE TITLE: Manas Mandar Godbole vs The State of Maharashtra
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2021
CORAM: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
