SUNNY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecution case is as follows: In the afternoon of 6-11-1982 P. W. 2 was grazing a cow belonging to P. W. 1 in a puramboke land situated near the property of accused 1 and 2. They let loose their dogs. The dogs chased the cow and it strayed into their compound. When the cow was running out of the compound A-l and A-3 standing on either side of the exit inflicted injuries by stabbing it with knives. Prosecution case was accepted by the Trial Court whereas the learned Sessions Judge held that offence under S.429 has not been made out.

(2.) The question that falls for consideration is whether causing mere injury to a domestic animal like a cow would constitute offence under S.429 of the I.P.C. S.429 states that whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule buffallo, bull, cow or ox. whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In the case of domestic animals its value is immaterial. In the case of other animals S.429 makes it clear that its value should be Rs. 50/- or more. To establish offence under S.429 the prosecution has certainly to establish that the animal has been killed, poisoned, maimed or rendered useless. In a case where a domestic animal as of the type enumerated under S.429 or any other animal of the value of Rs. 50/- or more is merely injured but not maimed or rendered useless, the offence would not come under S.429. There is no evidence in the case that the cow was maimed or rendered useless as a result of the overt acts of the accused. P.W.8. the Veterinary doctor did not state that the injuries sustained by the cow was sufficient to render it unless or it was maimed. Even assuming that some injuries were caused to the cow it would not constitute an offence under S.429 as there is no evidence of it being killed or poisoned or maimed or rendered useless. In the absence of any such evidence it is not possible to hold that the offence committed would come under S.429 of the I.P.C.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that A-l and A-2 cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable under S.429 of the I.P.C. As the specific charge is under S.429 of the I.P.C. and as it has not been established no interference against the judgment of the Sessions Judge is warranted.