K’taka HC refuses to enhance sentence of woman who caused death of eight puppies

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to interfere in the judgment 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 of fine. The woman paid the fine and therefore did not undergo imprisonment.

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 is now 72 years old and the trial court had rightly used its discretion in punishing her with only a fine.

The complainant, Harish K B, alleged that the accused Ponnamma 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 died two days later.

The police charged the woman under 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 exercise reasonable care).

The woman pleaded guilty to the charges and the trial court, after warning of the consequences of pleading guilty, imposed a 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 J M Khazi who gave his judgment 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.”