Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its images on WhatsApp, holding that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were not made out. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 218]Section 298 criminalizes injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class.Justice Subhas Mehla referring to epic Ramcharitmanas said,"individual expression of the petitioner, shaped by her personal experiences, cannot be criminalized merely because it does not align with the sensitivities of others. In the absence of mens rea, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated to validate subjective perceptions of hurt. Constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity which leads innocent acts to be construed as desecration."The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered, along with the final report filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.The allegations stemmed from a complaint by a private individual claiming that the petitioner had hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community by dressing her pet dog in attire associated with Lord Krishna on the occasion of Janmashtami and uploading the photograph as her WhatsApp status.The petitioner, an issueless woman, stated during investigation that she treated her pet dog as her child and had dressed it up as part of festive expression without any intention to offend religious sentiments.Counsel for the petitioner argued that the act was a bona fide expression of personal faith and affection, devoid of malicious intent.Essential ingredients of Section 298 BNS—both actus reus (defilement of a sacred object/place) and mens rea (intent to insult religion)—were absent.The State opposed the plea, contending that the act prima facie hurt religious sentiments and the petitioner admitted to dressing the dog as Lord Krishna and posting the image.Ingredients Of Sec 298 BNS Not CompliedThe Court noted that The the ingredient as to commission of the alleged offence relates to the actus reus i.e. damage, destroy, or defile a place of worship or object. The present case relates to subject matter of 'object'. In relation to Section 298 of BNS (erstwhile Section 295 of IPC), the word 'object' has been interpreted in a plethora of precedents including Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (1887) 10 All 150 FB . A combined reading of the aforesaid authorities reveals that the term 'object' must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the word 'place of worship'; accordingly, unless the 'object' is in a place of worship, or carried in a procession on a festive occasion, Section 298 of BNS would not apply, the bench said. Hence, in the present case, the 'object' which the petitioner made her pet dog wear, cannot be interpreted as 'object' within the meaning of Section 298 of BNS, it added.Gesture Of Dressing Pet In Customary Attire Done In Good FaithThe Court further added that the gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janamashtami seems to have been done in good faith and without malice. The posting of the photo on WhatsApp appears to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection.Dog Not Impure Creation Of GodJustice Mehla said, question of hurting others' religious sentiments and disgracing Lord Krishna arises primarily because of a myopic viewpoint that visualizes 'dog' as an impure creation of 'God'.Referring to the sacred Bhagvad Gita the Court said, "if Krishna himself says that a sage sees no difference between a priest and a dog because the same Divine Soul (Atman) resides in both, then seeing Krishna in a dog is not sacrilege - it is a realization of divine truth."Referring to Mahabharata, the judge further said in one of the final happenings in the great epic, after the great battle is over, there is a description of Yudhishthira accompanied by a stray dog ascending to heaven where Lord Indra asks him to leave the unclean dog behind in order to enter heaven. Yudhishthira declines Indra's instruction and conveys that he would rather give up heaven than abandon such a loyal creature. It is then that the dog shows its true form - that of Lord Dharma himself. This instance, stated in the Mahaprasthanika Parva of the Mahabharata is another succinct example of the relation between dog and divinity in the textual sense, it added.Dog Is Symbol Of Loyalty The Court said, when it comes to Hindu iconography and mythology, dog finds a special place here as the vehicle of Kal Bhairava, a manifestation of Lord Shiva. Idols of Bhairava on a black dog are worshipped by many sects especially within Tantric traditions. "It is stressed here that the dog is a symbol of loyalty, compassion, vigilance and protection and therefore a perfect companion to divine power.""Lord Dattatreya is also often depicted with...

Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers