A Mumbai Court recently convicted a 65-year-old man for kicking a female dog to death [State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Singh]..Judge Ruchi Bhagat sentenced one Kailash Singh under Section 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The Court imposed ₹30,000 fine on Singh in default of which he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month."The fact that the accused had kicked the dog is not denied by the defence. Thus the prosecution had proved that the accused had kicked the dog with a knowledge that it may amount to his death. Thus, the prosecution had laid a strong foundation for bringing home the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the alleged offences beyond any reasonable doubt," the Court said in its judgment passed on June 26..The case arose in 2020 when the complainant was told by one of his neighbors that he saw the accused (who lives in the same residential society) kicking a female dog. By the time, the complainant reached the spot to check on the dog, it had died. The CCTV footage of the premises showed the accused kicking the dog.They then filed a complaint and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under Section 429 IPC and under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of PCA Act..The accused refused to examine any defence witness and argued that he had kicked the dog to protect himself. He also pointed out that the color of the dog in the photograph attached to the final report was different from the color of the dog seen in the CCTV footage..The Court rejected the argument that the accused had kicked the dog to protect himself. The Court reasoned that the burden of proving the same is upon the accused as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was not done.The Court further noted that the evidence of the complainant, eyewitness (neighbor of the complainant) and the seized CCTV footage nailed the culpability of the accused and strengthened the case of prosecution."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," the Court observed while stating that the guilt of accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, it convicted the accused..Additional Public Prosecutor Kiran Vekhende appeared for State.Advocate SK Pandey appeared for accused. .[Read Judgment]
A Mumbai Court recently convicted a 65-year-old man for kicking a female dog to death [State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Singh]..Judge Ruchi Bhagat sentenced one Kailash Singh under Section 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The Court imposed ₹30,000 fine on Singh in default of which he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month."The fact that the accused had kicked the dog is not denied by the defence. Thus the prosecution had proved that the accused had kicked the dog with a knowledge that it may amount to his death. Thus, the prosecution had laid a strong foundation for bringing home the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the alleged offences beyond any reasonable doubt," the Court said in its judgment passed on June 26..The case arose in 2020 when the complainant was told by one of his neighbors that he saw the accused (who lives in the same residential society) kicking a female dog. By the time, the complainant reached the spot to check on the dog, it had died. The CCTV footage of the premises showed the accused kicking the dog.They then filed a complaint and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under Section 429 IPC and under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(1) of PCA Act..The accused refused to examine any defence witness and argued that he had kicked the dog to protect himself. He also pointed out that the color of the dog in the photograph attached to the final report was different from the color of the dog seen in the CCTV footage..The Court rejected the argument that the accused had kicked the dog to protect himself. The Court reasoned that the burden of proving the same is upon the accused as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was not done.The Court further noted that the evidence of the complainant, eyewitness (neighbor of the complainant) and the seized CCTV footage nailed the culpability of the accused and strengthened the case of prosecution."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," the Court observed while stating that the guilt of accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, it convicted the accused..Additional Public Prosecutor Kiran Vekhende appeared for State.Advocate SK Pandey appeared for accused. .[Read Judgment]
