HC refuses to enhance sentence of woman who caused death of 8 puppies

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to interfere in the judgement of a trial court which imposed a fine on a woman who caused the death of eight puppies.

The woman had pleaded guilty to the charges against her and was sentenced by the trial court to pay a fine and undergo imprisonment in default.

The woman had paid the fine. The complainant in the case however, approached an appeals court which dismissed his petition.

He then approached the High Court which too dismissed his petition on January 11 stating that a victim cannot challenge the quantum of punishment.

The Court also said that the accused in now 72 years old and the trial court had rightly used its discretion in punishing her with a fine.

One Harish KB had filed the complaint against one Ponnamma alleging that she had removed eight puppies from a drain in front of her home and put them in a vacant site.

Allegedly due to this, the eight puppies had died two days later. The police charged the woman under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 93 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The woman pleaded guilty to the charges and the Trial Court after warning of the consequences of pleading guilty imposed the punishment of Rs.700 fine under Section 429 IPC and in default to undergo imprisonment for seven days.

Similarly, she was imposed a fine of Rs.100 under the KP Act and in default undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

Under the Prevention of Cruelty Act she was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200 or undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

The complainant approached the Sessions Court against the 2016 order contending that the punishment imposed was not adequate.

The Sessions Court however dismissed his appeal. He then approached the HC in 2019. His petition was heard by Justice JM Khazi who gave his judgement on January 11, 2024.

The HC pointing to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code said, “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 also noted that the quantum of punishment prescribed under the various sections and Acts the woman was punished under and said, “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.” (CrLRP 1344/2019)