Delhi District Court
Complaint Cases/306/2014 on 15 February, 2016
State v. Deepak and others
FIR no. 306/14
PS Mianwali Nagar
15.02.2016
Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Anil in person.
Remaining accused persons are not present.
1.Vide this order the undersigned shall decide for which sections charge to be framed on the accused persons.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Amarjeet from "People for Animal"
made a complaint to SHO that they have received information that behind Sayeed Nangloi Village in the forest near Nala animals are being illegally slaughtered. It is further alleged that when the complainant with his associates reached the spot they found that the spot was stinking and there were bones and remains of animals and cows scattered there. It is further stated that certain persons were skinning the dead animals. On inquiry the police found that these persons i.e. accused persons were the MCD contractor who were responsible to dispose of the dead animals, however, they used to bring animals to that place to skin them and to take out their useful body parts. On these facts it is argued by Ld. APP for the state that the accused persons have committed offences punishable u/s 5,7,12 DACP Act as well as they have committed offence punishable u/s 270 IPC and u/s 295A/34 IPC.
3. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the accused persons that there is no evidence on record to show that accused persons have killed any animal including cow. It is further argued that admittedly the accused persons were the MCD Contractors and were just skinning the animals on the spot. It is further stated that they were skinning the animals in the forest to ensure that no public person would be offended or get inflicted by any disease due to skinning of the animals. Thus, it is argued that offence u/s 5,7,12 DACP Act or section 270/294A IPC are not made out against the accused pesons.
5. The undersigned have heard both the parties.
FIR no. 306/14 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 1 Of 3
6. In brief the facts of the case are that none of the prosecution witness had seen that the accused persons were slaughtering the animals/cows. They had just seen that the accused persons were skinning the animals in forest area near ganda nala.
7. Section 5 of DACP Act provides certain regulations / restrictions regarding transportation of Agricultural cattle (cows, calfs of cows, bulls and bullocks). Further, section 7 of DACP Act talks about sale, purchase and disposal in any other manner of the agricultural cattle and section 12 of DACP Act provides penalty for contradiction of section 4,5 and 7 of DACP Act.
8. Section 4 of DACP act prohibits slaughter of agricultural cattle. It has already been observed that there is no evidence that accused persons slaughter the agricultural cattle as none of the witness has seen them slaughtering the agricultural cattle. Further skinning of the cattle is not prohibited under this act. Thus, provisions of section 4,5,7 r/w 12 of DACP Act are not applicable to the present case.
9. Section 295A of IPC provides as under:-
Section 295A IPC - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs - Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
10. To make the act punishable under section 295A IPC it is required that the act has to be deliberate and should have been done with malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings. In the present case the accused persons were skinning the cows and other animals in a forest i.e. away from the residential houses. In these circumstances, when the accused persons were skinning the cows and other animals away from the glare of the public persons (in a forest) i.e. after ensuring that no body could see what they were doing, it cannot be held that FIR no. 306/14 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 2 Of 3 the accused persons were doing so deliberately and with malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Hindus. Thus, section 295A IPC is also not attracted in the present case.
11. Section 270 IPC reads as under:-
Section 270 - Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
12. Section 270 IPC punishes the malignant act. The word 'malignantly' indicates that the person spreading infection should be actuated by malice. The word denotes a deliberate intention on the part of the accused. It has already been observed that accused persons were skinning the animals in a forest away from residential houses or commercial place. Had the intention of the accused persons was to spread infection of disease dangerous to life they would have litter the remains of the animals in a residential area or at a place from where public persons pass by. While in the present case they were doing all the acts in a forest away from the public. Thus, they were not having required malignant intention to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
13. Nonetheless, the act of the accused persons was negligent enough to spread infection of disease dangerous to life as they were littering remains of the animals in open which could have resulted into spreading of infection. In view of the above stated discussion at this stage there is prima facie evidence on record to frame charge on the accused persons for commission of offence u/s 269 IPC which punishes the unlawful or negligent act which is likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life.
14. Put up the matter for framing charge against all the accused persons U/s 269 IPC on 03.03.2016.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
MM-04:West:THC:Delhi:15.02.2016
FIR no. 306/14 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 3 Of 3