A Mumbai Court imposed a Rs. 30,000 fine on a man for kicking a dog to death. The accused claimed he acted in self-defence and chose not to present any defence witnesses. However, the Court dismissed his argument.
Mumbai: A court in Mumbai, India recently convicted a 65-year-old man named Kailash Singh for kicking a female dog to death.
Judge Ruchi Bhagat sentenced Singh under Section 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act).
Read Also: HUMANS vs DOGS | Kerala HC: Priority Should Be Given to Human Lives Over Stray Dogs
The court imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000 on Singh. If he fails to pay the fine, he will have to serve a simple imprisonment of one month.
The Court in its judgment on June 2, stated,
“The defence did not deny that the accused had kicked the dog. Consequently, the prosecution successfully demonstrated that the accused was aware his actions could result in the dog’s death. Therefore, the prosecution established a solid basis for proving the accused’s guilt. The prosecution has proven the alleged offenses beyond any reasonable doubt,”.
In 2020, the complainant informed by a neighbour that they had witnessed the accused, who lives in the same residential community, kicking a female dog. By the time the complainant reached the location, the dog already died. CCTV footage from the premises showed the accused kicking the dog.
The complainant then filed a complaint, and a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the accused. The accused charged under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act.
The accused refused to present any defence witnesses and argued that he had kicked the dog in self-defence. Additionally, the accused pointed out that the colour of the dog in the photograph attached to the final report was different from the colour of the dog seen in the CCTV footage.
The Court dismissed the defense’s claim that the accused had kicked the dog in self-defense. According to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the responsibility of proving such a claim lies with the accused, which was not fulfilled in this case.
The Court highlighted that the testimonies from the complainant, an eyewitness who is the complainant’s neighbour, and the CCTV footage collected as evidence, conclusively established the accused’s guilt and supported the prosecution’s case.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Addresses the Menace of Stray Dogs Amid Tragic Incident
Emphasizing that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court noted,
“Direct evidence about the accused kicking the dog is on record, and the circumstantial evidence shows that after suffering from the said kick, the dog had died outside the gate of the building. The CCTV footage also corroborates the fact that the accused had kicked the dog,”
As a result, the Court convicted the accused.
Additional Public Prosecutor Kiran Vekhende represented the State, while Advocate SK Pandey defended the accused.
The court’s decision to impose a significant financial penalty aims not only to punish the offender but also to serve as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar acts of cruelty.
Read Judgement: [State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Singh].