- A BMW driver was discharged by the Delhi Court for a case filed against him in June 2019, under Sec 429 IPC for killing a stray dog in a road accident.
- The case was filed in 2019 at Mayur Vihar Police Station by a woman who had witnessed the BMW driver killing a stray dog at the Mayur Vihar red light.
- She also alleged that the car ran over the dog twice. She further added that the driver went swiftly past her despite her efforts to stop him.
- She then filed an FIR under Section 428/429 of IPC. The charge was framed by a metropolitan magistrate in March 2022.
- Justice Deepali Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge held on 19 November, 2022 observed that for Sec 429 IPC to apply, the element of commission of mischief must be present.
- It is mandatory to prove that the accused had the intention or requisite knowledge to cause such damage or wrongful loss to the public.
- From a plain reading of the FIR, it could be said that the accused driver was driving his car and had accidentally hit the dog, which resulted in the dog dying.
- The court said that the FIR has no mention of the deliberate intention of the driver to hit the dog.
- Though the accused was driving the car at a high speed, this alone cannot be attributed to say that he hit the dog to commit mischief under Section 429 IPC.
- The court in light of the facts, held that the accused is to be discharged of the offence charged against him under Section 429 IPC.
- The court delivered its decision based on a revision petition filed by Puneet against the trial court order to charge the accused under Section 429 IPC.
- In the revision petition, the counsel of the accused contended before the Sessions Court that Section 429 shall not apply to street dogs, and neither was there any presence of a deliberate intention to kill the dog and hence does not constitute mischief.
- A stray dog does not fall within the ambit of animals mentioned in the section and hence was not a property that could be subjected to an offence under Section 429 IPC.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor had argued that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused as he had killed a dog, driving at high speed.
- The impugned order convicting the accused was set aside.
"Loved reading this piece by Raashi Saxena?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
