Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder on 24 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV JAIN, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No.404/15
PS - M.S. Park
U/s 11.1 (L) PCA Act 1960 & 429 IPC
State Vs. Ravinder
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 79545/2016
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.09.2015
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 26.08.2015
D. NAME OF THE : Chander Shekhar
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Ravinder @ Rinku
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF: 11.1 (L) PCA Act 1960 &
429 IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS: Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted for the offences
u/s 429 IPC and convicted
u/s 11.1 (L) PCA Act 1960.
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24.05.2023
J. STATE REPRESENTED BY : Sh. Arun Kumar
Mavi
FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 1 Of 9
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision :
1. Present accused namely Ravinder @ Rinku is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/Sec. 11.1 (L) PCA Act 1960 & 429 IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 25.08.2015 at about 11:00 pm ASI Raghu Raj alongwith Ct. Suresh upon receiving DD No. 81B reached at the spot i.e. in front of H.No. 1/4431, Gali No. 7, Ram Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi. Upon reaching at the spot, police officials met complainant Chander Shekhar and get his statement recorded wherein he stated that on 25.08.2015 at about 11:00 pm, he was working in the room of his house alongwith one Harish when he heard that something fall on the ground. Upon looking outside from the window, he saw one dog lying outside the door of accused Rinku and accused Rinku from his terrace, in drunk condition was abusing the said dog. He further stated that he informed about the said incident to one Dayanand i.e. father of Harish. He further stated that when Dayanand asked Rinku about the same, Rinku started abusing him as well and stated that he had thrown the dog due to which she died.
Upon the said statement, IO got the FIR registered for the offence u/Sec. 11.1(L) PCA Act 1960. Further during the course of investigation, IO recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the site plan, arrested the accused persons and further got the postmortem conducted of the deceased dog. After completion of investigation, IO filed FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 2 Of 9 the charge-sheet against the accused Rinku for the offence punishable u/Sec. 429 IPC and u/Sec. 11.1(L) PCA Act 1960.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance of offence was taken by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 03.11.2015 and summons were issued upon the accused. Accused appeared before the court on 12.02.2016 and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused person u/s 207 Cr.P.C on 22.09.2016.
4. Thereafter, accused was charged for the offence u/Sec. 429 IPC and u/Sec. 11.1(L) PCA Act 1960 by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 11.07.2017, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of evidence, following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to prove its case:-
PW-1/Chander Shekhar supported the case of prosecution stating that on the date of incident he was present on the first floor of his house with Harish and was doing his work and at that time he heard the noise of some articles which had fallen on ground, to which he immediately rushed out of his house and had seen that one dog was lying in front of door of Rinku and Rinku was abusing the said dog in drunken condition. He thereafter told the same fact to the Dayanand, father of Harish to which Dayanand objected Rinku for abusing the dog, Rinku then replied that he had thrown the dog due to which he died. He further deposed that lodged FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 3 Of 9 the complaint with police Ex. PW-1/A and, police prepared the site plan at his instance, Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that accused Ravinder @ Rinku tied the rope in the neck of the female dog and hanged the said dog from roof and left the rope and due to fall on the ground the dog was expired. Witness correctly identified the black colour dog in the photographs shown to him and rope tied around the neck of the dog, said photograph is Ex. P-1. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
PW-2/Dayanand deposed that on the date of incident, he was present at the roof of his house and had seen one expired female dog on the ground. He has also seen the accused while he was hanging the female dog with rope from his roof and after sometime left the rope. He has further deposed that accused Ravinder @ Rinku at the time of incident was in drunken condition. Witness correctly identified the photograph of black colour female dog and some rope tied around the neck of dog, same is Ex. P-1.Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
PW-3/ASI Suresh Ram deposed that on 25.08.2015, he was posted at PS: M.S. Park as constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am and on that day at about 11:35 pm, call was received regarding quarrel/fight and thereafter, he alongwith IO ASI Raghuraj went to the spot where they met complainant Chander Shekhar and had seen black female dog lying dead on the street near H.No. 4431. He further deposed that IO prepared tehrir and accused Ravinder arrested FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 4 Of 9 vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he took tehrir to PS for registration of FIR and came back at the spot after registration of FIR and dead female dog was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that the dead body of the female dog was taken to veterinary hospital, Shahdara for conducting the postmortem of dead body of female dog. Witness correctly identified the dead body of female dog in photograph Ex.P1. However, the witness failed to identify the accused in the Court.
PW-4/HC Retd. ASI Raghuraj Singh deposed similarly in the lines of PW-3 and the same is not been reiterated here for the sake of brevity. IO further deposed with regard to preparing of site plan Ex.PW1/B and recording of statement of witnesses. He further deposed that he prepared site plan on the instance of complainant Ex.PW1/B and clicked the photograph of the said female dog and seized the dead body of dog vide Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that after postmortem, he collected the PM report from hospital and after completion of investigation, he prepared charge-sheet and submitted the same before the court. He correctly identified the photograph of the dead body of dog which is already Ex.P1.
6. It is pertinent to state here that after deposition of PW-4 i.e. Retd. ASI Raghuraj Singh, an application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused wherein he seeks to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for their cross-examination. The said application was allowed by this court on 09.05.2023 and summons were issued upon both the witnesses. It is further FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 5 Of 9 pertinent to mention here that despite service witness Chander Shekhar did not appear while summons upon witness Dayanand were not received back.
7. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that since the witness has not appeared and that he can directly argue upon the present case and bring out the contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses, he need not cross- examine the said witnesses. In view of the said averments made by the counsel for accused, PE stands closed on 24.05.2023 and statement of accused u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
8. In his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., it is stated by the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not wish to lead DE. In view of the same, DE stands closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
9. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that both the eye-witness of the case supported the case of prosecution and further correctly identified the accused in the court. It is further argued that since none of the eye-witness was cross-examined by the accused and their testimonies goes unrebutted, prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted for the offence he is charged for.
10. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. It FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 6 Of 9 is further argued that Section 429 IPC is not made out against the accused persons. It is further argued that one of the key eye-witness has already expired and has not deposed before the court. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be acquited for the offences he is charged.
11. I have heard the arguments made by Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. Defence counsel and perused the case file carefully.
12. It is settled proposition of criminal law that burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
13. It is case of the prosecution that on 25.08.2015 at about 11:00 pm accused Rinku caused death of a street dog by strangulating her with a rope. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined complainant Chander Shekhar and eye-witness Dayanand.
The complainant Chander Shekhar in his testimony has stated that he saw one dog lying in front of door of Rinku and Rinku was abusing the said dog and he was in drunken condition. He further deposed that accused told Dayanand that he had thrown the dog. Similarly, witness Dayanand has categorically stated in his testimony that he had seen that accused FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 7 Of 9 Rinku was hanging the female dog with rope from his roof and after sometime he left the rope. Further both the witnesses correctly identified the accused Rinku in the court.
14. Since both of the said witnesses were never cross-examined by the accused despite giving opportunity and testimony of both the witnesses has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and further since accused has not brought forth any defence in order to show or prove that he has not committed the said offence, prosecution has successfully discharged the burden of proof lies upon it.
15. Once the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the question which is required to determine as to under which offence accused is liable to be convicted, since, as per Ld. Counsel for the accused, Section 429 IPC is not made out.
16. Section 429 IPC provides punishment in case of mischief by killing or maiming cattle etc. of any value or any animal of the value of Rs.50/-. Further Section 425 IPC define mischief as whoever intentionally or knowingly cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person by destruction or change in property etc. is said to have commit the offence of mischief. As such from the bare reading of Section 425 IPC, it is clear that for constituting the offence of mischief the essential ingredients is destruction of property.
FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 8 Of 9
17. In the present case in hand, the accused Ravinder @ Rinku is stated to have killed a stray dog. Since, no one has any property or right in a stray dog, the killing of that animal does not come under the purview of Section 425 of IPC. Since, the act of the accused Ravinder herein cannot be considered as mischief, the accused Ravinder @ Rinku cannot be convicted u/Sec. 429 IPC. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in A.P. Arya vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2008 (2) JCR 41 JHR .
18. On the other hand, the act of the accused by killing a stray dog in a cruel manner specifically falls under the purview of Section 11.1(L) of PCA Act 1960, which provides that if any person mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dog) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner shall be punishable with fine as provided in the act.
19. Considering the law and facts discussed above, accused Ravinder@ Rinku stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 11.1(L) of PAC Act Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN 1960. JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:08:26 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (ANUBHAV JAIN) on dated 24 th May, 2023 ACMM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/24.05.2023 Present judgment consisted of 9 pages and each page bears Digitally signed by my signatures. ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:08:36 +0530 (ANUBHAV JAIN) ACMM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KKD/24.05.2023 FIR No. 404/15 State vs. Ravinder @ Rinku Page No. 9 Of 9