HC quashes animal cruelty case over stray dog accident

Kolkata: The mere involvement of a vehicle in an accident cannot invite criminal charges under animal cruelty laws unless there is evidence of intent to cause harm, the Calcutta High Court has held while quashing a criminal case against a Howrah man accused of running over a stray dog.

The single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee described the incident as "at best an unfortunate road accident", observing that there was no evidence to show the driver had deliberately or knowingly caused the stray dog's death.



The case dates back to Dec 4, 2002. A stray dog was run over by a slow-moving car near 2/9 Olaibibitala Bylane, Howrah. An FIR was filed before Chatterjeehat PS and a case was registered under sections of IPC and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960.

It was alleged that the man had deliberately run over the stray dog, with two witnesses claiming the vehicle was moving slowly to specifically target the animal. The dog was said to have died on the spot, but no photographic evidence, veterinarian's certificate or official record was produced to establish what had happened after the incident.

The driver's case was that the "slow movement" of the car was inconsistent with any intent to harm, contending that a deliberate attempt to kill an animal would more likely involve speeding or overt aggression. It was also pointed out that he lived barely 20 metres from the spot.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the case, registered under Sections 428 and 429 of IPC, falls flat. "Admittedly the dog was a stray dog and as I have stated above that there was no owner of stray dog and also was not the ‘property' which could be subjected to the offence of Section 429 IPC. Section 429 provides mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox whatever may be value or any other animal of the value of Rs 50 or upwards but such property should be public property or property to any person." The judge clarified that stray dogs, which are neither owned nor controlled by any govt authority or institution, fall outside the boundary of "public property".

As for the punishment under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, which penalises anyone who beats, kicks, overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, or otherwise treats any animal in a way that subjects it to unnecessary pain or suffering, the HC held that the claim of cruelty under the Act demands at least some demonstration of unnecessary pain inflicted with purpose. There is no evidence showing the dog's alleged injury or even its death, which has not been conclusively proved.