Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court has sentenced a man to one year of imprisonment for throwing acid on a dog, resulting in the loss of one of the animal’s eyes.
The court described the act as both conscience-shaking and bone-chilling. The incident occurred in 2020, and an FIR was registered at the Paharpur Ganj Police station.
While sentencing the convict, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Richa Sharma stated, “The convict has committed an offence in a manner that shakes not only the conscience of this court but is also bone-chilling.” She added, “The act of throwing a corrosive or burning substance, which resulted in the loss of one eye of the dog, is serious and grave. Letting off such a person with minimal punishment and granting any leniency will convey an adverse message to society.”
ACJM Sharma emphasized, “Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to any human. A human being is expected to remember that his actions towards animals reflect humanity. It is our responsibility to be compassionate and kind to animals.”
The court also referenced a saying by Mahatma Gandhi: “To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.”
Additionally, the court cited the renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who stated, “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.”
The judge also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 429 of the IPC and Rs 50 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In default of payment, the convict will undergo an additional three months of simple imprisonment.
On March 14, 2024, accused Mahendra Singh was convicted under Section 429 of the IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The public prosecutor sought the maximum punishment, arguing that the manner of the offence constituted the highest order of cruelty and that leniency was unwarranted.
In contrast, the defence counsel argued that the convict, a 70-year-old senior citizen, has a dependent wife aged 65 and a son who has been in poor health since an accident nearly a decade ago. The defence further noted that the convict’s son, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren are also dependent on him. The prosecutor mentioned that the convict, having suffered significant losses during the COVID-19 lockdown, now runs a hawker stall with his son’s assistance to make ends meet.
