What are provisions of private defence in prevention of cruelty against animals?India , see details.?

Imagine some man gets scared too much %26amp; rashly kills a stray dog who was about to BITE on his leg....


Is it too punishable under section 428 or 429 of Indian Penal Code about prevention of cruelty against animals ( India) ?


What are provisions of private defence in these acts?

What are provisions of private defence in prevention of cruelty against animals?India , see details.?
Sections96 to section 106 of the Indian Penal code state the right of private defense of the body %26amp; property, the necessary conditions necessary in exercising such right, extend to such right (commencement and continuance of such right), exceptions when such right cannot be exercised %26amp; against whom, etc.Section 96 provides nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense, Section 97 clearly provides every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend-


First-His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;


Secondly-The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief for criminal trespass. Here let me point out provision restricting such a right is against the a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law, as provide by section 99 of the Code. Section 100 of the Code provides The right of private defense of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely :--


First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;


Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; .......


In the given case some man gets scared too much %26amp; rashly kills a stray dog that was about to BITE on his leg.... Now if we read section 97 %26amp; section100 together the right to private defense this man can pray against the act of killing such a stray dog can be allowed as the provision of section 97 say defend his own body against any offence affecting the human body %26amp; section 100 clearly use the term assailant, here such a provision no where defines that such an assailant has to be a person only %26amp; it cannot be an animal. This man had the reasonable apprehension that the stray dog was to bite his leg %26amp; in order to prevent such an harm to himself he used force against the dog that killed this stray dog. In such a case the right to private defense can be taken, but the onus to prove that such a right is always on the person who claims it, this is the principle of the law regarding right to private defense. In this context let me give you principle the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in its latest judgment DHARAM %26amp; OTHERS V/s STATE OF HARYANA in CASE No.Appeal (crl.) 143 of 2006 To put it pithily, the right of private defence is a


defensive right. It is neither a right of aggression nor of


reprisal. There is no right of private defence where there


is no apprehension of danger. The right of private


defence is available only to one who is suddenly


confronted with the necessity of averting an impending


danger not of self creation. Necessity must be present,


real or apparent. Thus, the basic principle underlying the doctrine of


the right of private defence is that when an individual or


his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid


from the state machinery is not readily available, that


individual is entitled to protect himself and his property.


That being so, the necessary corollary is that the violence


which the citizen defending himself or his property is


entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to


the injury which is sought to be averted or which is


reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its


legitimate purpose. We may, however, hasten to add that


the means and the force a threatened person adopts at


the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and to


save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden


scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down


abstract parameters which can be applied to determine


as to whether the means and force adopted by the


threatened person was proper or not. Answer to such a


question depends upon host of factors like the prevailing


circumstances at the spot, his feelings at the relevant


time; the confusion and the excitement depending on the


nature of assault on him etc. Nonetheless, the exercise


of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or


malicious. It would be repugnant to the very concept of


private defence.


It is trite that the burden of establishing the plea of


self defence is on the accused but it is not as onerous as


the one that lies on the prosecution. While the


prosecution is required to prove its case beyond


reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the


plea of self defence to the hilt and may discharge the


onus by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour


of that plea on the basis of the material on record.
Reply:Further to Vijay M's comprehensive answer, please do a Google search and try and locate a very recent Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Arijit Pasayat which defines the nature and scope of private i.e. self defence. This was in the context of a murder case, but the principles remain the same. The judgment was reported in most major newspapers, but unfortunately I dont remember the names of the parties else you could have easily got it from judis.nic.in


If Im not mistaken, the burden is upon the accused to prove that he acted in good faith to prevent injury and harm to himself and there was nothing he could reasonably do in the circumstances to avoid fatal injury to the attacker. In the case of killing an animal, it will not be that important to prove this as it would if killing a human being, I should imagine.


Good luck.


I have now found the judgment summary: 2007 SCCL.COM 682(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2007)


Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra and Ors. Appellants versus State of West Bengal Respondent


Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 6/6/2007.


Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.


Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304 Part II read with Section 149 — conviction under — appeal — in order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to — the High Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the plea relating to exercise of right of private defence — 8 years sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II. The incident is of the year 1990. Considering this fact and the background in which the occurrence took place, custodial sentence of 6 years would meet the ends of justice.

inch plant