Karnataka HC dismisses appeal requested to raise Rs 1,000 fine on lady who caused death of eight puppies
In a distressing animal cruelty case, a convict removed and separated 20-day-old puppies from their mother, resulting in their tragic death. Despite pleading guilty, the complainant appealed the trial court's lenient sentence. The High Court, citing legal provisions, dismissed the appeal, emphasizing it couldn't challenge the punishment's quantum. Dissatisfaction lingers in the pursuit of justice for the innocent animals.
FollowIn a distressing case of animal cruelty, a convict who removed and separated 20-day-old puppies from their mother, leading to their tragic death, faced dissatisfaction over the imposed sentence. Despite pleading guilty, the complainant argued that the trial court overlooked the gravity of the offence, resulting in an appeal before the High Court.
A heart-wrenching incident of animal cruelty came to light as a convict, on March 15, 2016, removed 20-day-old puppies from a drain near her residence, placing them in an open area. The drain was subsequently blocked, preventing the pups and their mother from returning. Tragically, the defenceless puppies perished without their mother's care.
New govt should not revoke investigations ordered by previous administrations: Karnataka HC
The convict admitted guilt, leading to a conviction by the trial court on January 23, 2017, upheld by the sessions court on August 6, 2019. Dissatisfied with the sentence's leniency, Harish, an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer and complainant, filed an appeal before the High Court.
The complainant contended that the trial court failed to grasp the severity of the offence, committing an error by imposing only a fine on the convict. Conversely, the State counsel highlighted the convict's admission of guilt, justifying the trial court's decision to convict and fine her.
Karnataka High Court sentences man to life imprisonment for killing wife over refusing to cook midnight
In its judgment, the Court underscored that the applicable provisions allowed for either a jail term, a fine, or both as punishment. Additionally, the court noted that section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) did not permit the complainant to appeal the quantum of punishment. This section exclusively allows challenging acquittal or less compensation. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, leaving a sense of dissatisfaction in the quest for justice for the innocent animals.
The legal proceedings were presented by Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastin and Advocate Girish YL for the petitioner, while Advocates Adithya S Kumar and Channappa Erappa represented the State.
