Savvy Thakur
Published on: October 31, 2022 at 20:13 IST
In the event of an accident involving pet animals, the Karnataka High Court ruled on Friday that violations of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will not be brought into play.
According to Justice Suraj Govindraj, a single judge, the offense of rash driving under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code only penalizes harm to humans, and the provision would not apply if a vehicle accident were caused by an animal.
“Any injury that is not caused by a human being is not recognized or made a crime under this provision.”
According to the Court, “the same would not amount to an offence in terms of Section 279 of IPC” in regard to the injury or death caused to the pet or animal.
The Court stated that if the same rule were applied to animal injuries or deaths, it would result in an offense of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was not intended by the IPC.
The Court extended the same logic to Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that it only applied to injuries to humans and not animals.
The court stated, “..said provision relates only to injury to a person, and a dog/animal not being a person would not come within the ambit of Section 134 (a) and (b) of the MV Act.”
The provision in question only applies to harm to a person.
Similarly, the Court stated that an animus and/or intention must be established in order to attract the offenses of mischief of killing an animal under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC.
“It is not sufficient to simply be aware that there is a possibility of causing an accident.”
The Court stated, “There must be an intent to cause wrongful loss or damage.”
The issues for consideration before the bench were:
- Whether an offence under Section 134 (A & B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would get attracted in the event of an accident involving a pet animal?
- Whether an offence under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would get attracted in the event of an accident involving a pet animal?
- Whether an offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be alleged if an injury is caused to an animal while driving the vehicle?
- For an offence to be alleged under Sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, there is an animus and/or intention which is required to be established?
- Whether there is a requirement of this Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings?
Regarding the first issue, the bench noted that “Section 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act deals with situations where any person is hurt or any third party property is harmed. However, the MV Act’s Sections 134(a) and (b) do not provide any provisions for damage to property.”
“Only receiving medical care for the injured individual is discussed under Sections 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act. If the pet or animal in question is considered to be a third party’s property in this circumstance, then there isn’t a violation of Section 134(a) or (b) of the MV Act warranted for the harm to that third party’s property.”
“A dog or other animal that is not a person would not fall under the purview of Sections 134(a) and (b) of the MV Act because, in light of the foregoing, the stated provision solely refers to injury to a person.”
When responding to the second issue, the High Court stated that it is a violation of Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act if a driver refuses to submit information when requested by a police officer who has been granted this authority by the State Government.
There is no violation of the clause in sub-section (1) of Section 132, Section 133, or Section 134 that calls for the application of Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Consequently, Section 187 of the MV Act would not apply in the event of an accident involving a pet or animal.
When addressing the third issue, the court said that putting a pet in danger or inflicting harm or injury on an animal would not be among the offences covered by Section 279 of the IPC if read and understood literally, which is the meaning that must be given to all penal provisions. Therefore, a pet dog accident would not constitute a crime under Section 279 of the IPC.
According to the High Court, there is no offence established under Sections 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Section 279 of the IPC, and Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC; to continue the criminal proceedings would only be an abuse of the court’s process and would unfairly subject the petitioner to the humiliation of a criminal trial.
As a result, this is an appropriate situation in which Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be used.
The bench allowed the petition in light of the aforementioned.
Case Title: Pratap Kumar G. vs. State of Karnataka