Road Accidents Involving Injury To Animals Do Not Attract 'Rash Driving' Offences U/S 279 IPC, S.134 & 187 MV Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to rash driving would not be attracted in cases of accident involving a pet dog/ animals. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj further held that such accidents would also not attract liability under Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act which pertain to 'Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person' and 'Punishment for offences relating to accident' respectively.The bench refused to read the word 'person' used in these provisions to include 'animals' and held that penal provisions must be understood in their "literal sense". Otherwise, "in the event of a death of a pet or animal, the offence under Section 302 of IPC would also be attracted", it remarked.The Court was hearing a quashing petition moved by one Prathap Kuimar G. who was booked under Sections 134 (a & b), 187 of MV Act and Sections 279, 428 and 429 of IPC, after a SUV being driven by him hit the complainant's pet dog, leading to its demise.The Complainant's counsel relied on Supreme Court's decision in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547, to argue that that no creature is superior to any human being and animals are to be treated equally and that even the animals have a right to life. However, the bench was of the view that the above ruling was in the context of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and cannot be attracted to Section 279 IPC. "An offence being penal in nature involving punishment unless the provision makes a particular act an offence, an interpretation cannot be rendered so as to make an act which is not an offence to be an offence under the said provision," it said. Similarly, the bench held that Section 134 (a) and (b) of M.V.Act only speak of securing medical attention for the injured person. In the present case, if the pet/animal is regarded to be a property of a third party, there is no offence as such made out in terms of Section 134 (a) or (b) of M.V.Act as regards the damage to such property of a third party. It added, "The said provision relates only to injury to a person, a dog/animal not being a person would not come within the ambit of Section 134 (a) and (b) of M.V.Act." Further the bench held in the event of an accident involving a pet/animal, Section 187 of MV Act would also not get attracted. So far as application of Sections 428 and 429 of IPC is concerned, the bench said they are mentioned under Chapter XVII relating to "Offences against the property" and come under sub-heading relating to "mischief". It noted that if A.Nagaraja's case is applied to an offence under Section 428 or Section 429 of IPC, which deals with mischief to property more so animals, there is no provision similar to Section 304A of IPC available under Chapter XVII more so under the sub-chapter Mischief relating to causing death of an animal by negligence. Then it remarked, "In the absence of such a classification and/or such an offence being categorized, I am of the considered opinion that it is the general principles of criminal law which would be applicable for any offence under IPC and for an offence under Section 428 or Section 429 of IPC to be committed there must be a 'mens rea' which is required to be established. Without such 'means rea' or when animus to commit an offence is absent, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 428 or Section 429 of IPC has occurred." Moreover, the bench said admittedly, the petitioner is not known to the complainant and/or his family members nor that the petitioner has any enmity with the deceased pet dog Memphi. Hence, there cannot be any animus said to be existence in the petitioner to cause the death of the said pet Memphi. "I am of the considered opinion that mere knowing that there is likely to cause an accident is not sufficient. There has to be an intent to cause wrongful loss or damage. The same not having been established exfacie, I am of the considered opinion that no offence under Section 428 and Section 429 of IPC can be said to be made out," Court said.Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner. Case Title: PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433 Date of Order: 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 Appearance: M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE for petitioner; MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; P. ANU CHENGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Road Accidents Involving Injury To Animals Do Not Attract 'Rash Driving' Offences U/S 279 IPC, S.134 & 187 MV Act: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags