Photo by Pavan Naik on Unsplash
In a landmark judgment, Delhi's Tis Hazari Court sentenced a man to one year imprisonment for throwing acid on a dog which caused the animal to lose one of its eyes. The court described the act as deeply disturbing and shocking. This incident which occurred in 2020, was reported to the Paharpur Ganj Police Station which led to the filing of an FIR.
Court's Reaction
During the sentencing, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Richa Sharma expressed the court's strong disapproval of the crime. She stated that the offense was not only alarming but also profoundly troubling. ACJM Sharma emphasized that throwing a corrosive substance on the dog that was resulting in the loss of its eye was a severe and grave crime. She argued that a lenient punishment would send the wrong message to society.
Reflection on Humanity
The court emphasized the importance of treating animals with compassion by noting that the life of a mute creature is as valuable as that of a human. The court highlighted the expectation that humans should act humanely towards animals as their behaviour reflects their humanity. It is a shared responsibility to treat animals with kindness and care.
Mahatma Gandhi's Perspective
The court also cited Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that the life of a lamb is as precious as that of a human. Gandhi emphasized that the more defenseless a creature, the more it deserves protection from human cruelty. This perspective reinforced the court's decision to impose a strict penalty on the convict by affirming the principle of compassion and protection for all living beings.
The Court's Verdict: A Lesson in Humanity and Justice
- The Wisdom of Kant: In the court ruling, a significant reference was made to the renowned German philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who famously said, "He who is cruel to animals becomes hard in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of man by his treatment of animals." This profound statement was brought into the courtroom to underline the moral implications of animal cruelty and its reflection on human character.
- Imposing Penalties: The court did not merely rely on philosophical wisdom. It also imposed a strict penalty on the convict. Under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a fine of Rs 10,000 was levied. Additionally, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a fine of Rs 50 was imposed. The court decreed that if the fines were not paid, the convict would face three months of simple imprisonment.
The Conviction of Mahendra Singh
On March 14, 2024, Mahendra Singh was found guilty of offenses under Section 429 of the IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The case highlighted the severity of the crime and the need for strict legal repercussions.
The Prosecution's Stance
The public prosecutor argued for the maximum punishment. He emphasized that the nature of the crime represented the highest degree of cruelty towards any living being. The prosecutor stressed that such acts warranted no leniency, advocating for a stern punishment to set a precedent against animal cruelty.
The Defence's Plea for Leniency
Contrastingly, the defense counsel highlighted mitigating circumstances. He argued that Mahendra Singh, being a senior citizen aged 70 has a dependent wife aged 65. The defense pleaded for the court to consider Singh's advanced age and his family responsibilities by suggesting a more lenient approach.
Balancing Justice and Compassion
The court's decision reflects a balanced approach to justice. By invoking Kant’s philosophy, the court underscored the moral duty to treat animals with kindness, which in turn shapes our humanity. The penalties imposed serve as a reminder of the legal and ethical standards expected in society, while also considering the personal circumstances of the convict. This case reiterates the importance of compassion in both human and animal interactions, setting a legal precedent for the future.
The Plight of a Family: A Convict's Struggle for Survival
In a recent court hearing, the public prosecutor highlighted the challenging circumstances faced by a convict and his family. Nearly a decade ago, the convict’s son experienced a severe accident. Since that tragic event, his health has significantly deteriorated, rendering him unable to fully support himself or his family. As a result, the convict’s son along with his wife and two children are now dependent on him for their livelihood.
Economic Hardships Post-COVID
The situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The convict, who had previously been engaged in a more stable occupation, suffered substantial financial losses due to the prolonged lockdowns. The economic downturn led to the collapse of his previous business that was leaving him with no choice but to find alternative means to support his family.
Turning to Hawking for Survival
In the face of these hardships, the convict turned to hawking to earn a living. With limited options available, he set up a small hawker stall. Despite the physical and emotional toll, he persevered, receiving occasional help from his son. Together, they strive to make ends meet by managing to sustain themselves amidst the ongoing economic challenges.
A Call for Compassion
The public prosecutor’s submission emphasised the convict’s efforts and the dire circumstances of his family. It was a call for understanding and compassion by highlighting the convict’s dedication to supporting his family despite the numerous obstacles he faces.
. . .
References: