Accidents involving pets or animals gained’t entice rash driving clause, says Karnataka HC

In a current judgment, the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom held that the supply of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Motor Autos Act could be relevant for accidents brought on to pets or animals throughout highway accidents. Specifically, the court docket dominated that the supply underneath part 279 of the Indian Penal Code for rash driving was relevant solely to human beings and to not a pet or an animal. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, on October 21, handed the judgment whereas listening to a petition filed by a 21-year-old, in search of to quash the proceedings in opposition to him during which he had been accused of inflicting the demise of a pet canine.

Justice Govindaraj additionally dominated that prices imposed underneath part 279 of IPC wouldn’t be attracted because the part didn’t recognise and/or make an offence any harm brought on to animals. “An accident involving a pet canine wouldn’t entice an offence underneath Part 279 of IPC,” he held. He additionally held that part 187 of the MV Act pertaining to punishment for inflicting an accident wouldn’t get attracted within the occasion of an accident involving a pet or an animal.

The case pertained to an accident in 2018, when Prathap Kumar, who was driving an SUV, hit one of many canines being walked by a lady who was taking her pets for a stroll in a residential space. The pet canine named Memphi died after sustaining accidents within the accident. Her son, Dhiraj Rakheja filed a criticism on this regard with the site visitors police. A cost sheet was filed in opposition to Prathap Kumar underneath sections 279 (rash driving or driving on a public method), 428 (mischief by killing or maiming animal of the worth of ten rupees), and 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle, and so on., of any worth or any animal of the worth of fifty rupees) of IPC. He additionally confronted prices underneath sections 134(a), 134(b) and 187 of the MV Act. Part 134 of the MV Act offers with the responsibility of the motive force in case of accident and harm to an individual and part 187 with punishment for offences regarding accident.

Prathap’s counsel mentioned that he was harmless of the offence and mentioned that there was no mens rea [wrong intention] on a part of the petitioner to trigger harm or hurt to the pet canine. “The mentioned canine being on the highway, whereas the petitioner was driving has resulted within the accident,” the counsel contended. Nonetheless, the counsel for the complainant argued that the pet canine Memphi was not only a pet canine, however a member of the complainant’s household and gave lots of solace to the mom of the complainant. The counsel argued that the pet shouldn’t be handled in a different way than a human being hit by a automobile.

After listening to each the events, Justice Govindaraj mentioned that not one of the Acts coated the harm brought on to a pet or animal, however solely handled human beings. Stating that the supply of Part 134(a) or (b) of the MV Act wouldn’t get attracted within the occasion of an accident involving a pet or animal, the court docket mentioned that the part handled a state of affairs when an individual was injured or the property of a 3rd social gathering was broken. The court docket additionally mentioned that the part spoke solely of securing medical consideration to an injured particular person. “I’m of the thought of opinion that the mentioned provision relates solely to harm to an individual, a canine/animal not being an individual wouldn’t come inside the ambit of Part 134 (a) and (b) of MV Act,” the court docket held.

The court docket mentioned that the petitioner was not identified to the complainant or his relations and he didn’t have any enmity with the deceased pet canine Memphi. “Therefore, there can’t be any animus mentioned to be in existence within the petitioner to trigger the demise of the mentioned pet Memphi…. There needs to be an intent to trigger wrongful loss or harm,” the court docket dominated. Stating that the continuation of the legal proceedings would solely be an ‘abuse of means of Courtroom’ and would trigger ‘injustice to the petitioner’ to undergo the ignominy of a legal trial, the HC quashed the proceedings.

Watch: Why the Kerala Governor requested 9 VCs to resign