The High Court of Karnataka has refused to intervene within the judgement of a trial court docket which imposed a fantastic on a girl who precipitated the demise of eight puppies.
The lady had pleaded responsible to the costs towards her and was sentenced by the trial court docket to pay a fantastic and bear imprisonment in default of fantastic. The lady paid the fantastic and due to this fact didn’t bear imprisonment.
The complainant within the case, nevertheless, approached an appeals court docket, which dismissed his petition. He then approached the excessive court docket which, too, dismissed his petition on 11 January, stating {that a} sufferer can not problem the quantum of punishment.
The court docket additionally stated that the accused is now 72 years old and the trial court docket had rightly used its discretion in punishing her with solely a fantastic.
Also Read: Bengaluru cops clamp down on cybercrime using biometrics from land records, Aadhaar-enabled payments
Complainant’s declare
The complainant, Harish KB, alleged that the accused Ponnamma had eliminated eight puppies from a drain in entrance of her home and put them in a vacant website. Allegedly as a result of this, the eight puppies died two days later.
The police charged the girl below Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code (commits mischief by killing an animal), Section 93 of the Karnataka Police Act (punishment for cruelty to animals) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (failure to train affordable care).
The lady pleaded responsible to the costs and the trial court docket, after warning of the implications of pleading responsible, imposed a punishment of ₹700 fantastic below Section 429 IPC and, in default to bear imprisonment for seven days.
Similarly, she was imposed a fantastic of ₹100 below the KP Act and in default bear imprisonment for 15 days.
Under the Prevention of Cruelty Act, she was sentenced to pay a fantastic of ₹200 or bear imprisonment for 15 days.
The complainant approached the classes court docket towards the 2016 order contending that the punishment imposed was not sufficient. The classes court docket, nevertheless, dismissed his enchantment.
He then approached the HC in 2019. His petition was heard by Justice J M Khazi who gave his judgment on January 11, 2024.
Also Read: Bengaluru cops clamp down on cybercriminals using biometrics from land records, Aadhaar-enabled payments
‘No right to appeal’
The HC, pointing to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated, “The plain reading of the Section makes it clear that the victim has no right of appeal, challenging the quantum of punishment. He can only challenge the acquittal or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.”
The HC additionally famous that the quantum of punishment prescribed below the varied sections and acts the girl was punished below and stated, “Having regard to the fact that at the time of incident, the accused was aged 65 years and she has admitted her guilt, the trial court was well within its power to exercise discretion. Now accused is aged about 72 years. Having regard to these aspects, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere.”
