May Be Treated As Child By Owners But Dogs Aren’t Human Beings: Bombay High Court Quashes Rash Driving Case Against Swiggy Delivery Partner
The owners may treat dogs as their children but dogs aren’t human beings and hence a person cannot be booked under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC pertaining to endangering a human’s life for a dog’s death, the Bombay High Court has held.A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed an FIR against a Swiggy food delivery partner who met with an accident with a...
The owners may treat dogs as their children but dogs aren’t human beings and hence a person cannot be booked under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC pertaining to endangering a human’s life for a dog’s death, the Bombay High Court has held.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed an FIR against a Swiggy food delivery partner who met with an accident with a dog while he was riding his vehicle and the animal was trying to cross the road. While both were injured, the animal succumbed to its injuries.
The accused Manas Godbole, now in his final year of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication, was only 18 at the time of the accident.
The court observed that the officers 'defied logic' by booking the accused under IPC Sections 279, 337 and 449 and imposed cost of Rs. 20,000 on the state. The bench directed that the cost amount be recovered from the concerned officers’ salaries.
“No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings. Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to acts endangering human life, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Thus, legally speaking the said Sections will have no application to the facts in hand, this essential ingredient necessary to constitute the offences, being amiss,” the bench observed.
Apart from sections 229, 337 and 449 of the IPC, the Marine Drive police had also booked Manas Godbole under Section 11(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. But considering the manner in which the incident happened, the court said there was no mens rea to hurt the animal.
“Thus, taking the case as it stands, no offences as allegedly are disclosed qua the petitioner and as such, the impugned FIR/prosecution/proceeding cannot be sustained … The police being the custodian of law, need to be more circumspect and cautious whilst registering FIRs and ofcourse later, whilst filing chargesheet.”
Advocate Trupti Shetty for the petitioner argued that during the nationwide lockdown he was making a delivery on 11th April, 2020. Around 8.00 pm, when the complainant was feeding stray dogs at Marine Drive, she saw him ride the bike.
She said that Godbole was riding within the speed limits, when suddenly a stray dog came in front of his bike. “In an attempt to save the dog, the petitioner suddenly applied brakes of his bike and veered to the side, however, unfortunately, the dog also moved to the same side, and in that process, the petitioner fell down and the dog sustained injuries and subsequently passed away.”
The court said there was no intent whatsoever of the petitioner to cause the death of the dog which intersected the road when the petitioner was on his bike, on way to deliver a food parcel.
"Nothing is shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, as a result of which, the petitioner’s bike due to sudden braking, skidded and as such the petitioner sustained injuries on his person in the said incident and the dog got injured and later succumbed to the same," it added.
Title: Manas Mandar Godbole versus The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 10