Karnataka High Court refuses to enhance ₹1,000 fine on lady convicted for causing death of eight puppies

The Karnataka High Court recently declined to enhance the sentence ₹1,000 fine handed down to a septuagenarian lady who had caused the death of eight puppies [Harish KB vs Ponnamma]..Single-judge Justice JM Khazi dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant in the case, noting that the convict was a senior citizen and the trial court had rightly imposed a fine of ₹1,000 under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Karnataka Police Act."It is relevant to note that when the incident took place, the accused was aged 65 years. She found a stray bitch having given birth to eight puppies and they were howling day in and out, she removed the puppies from the drain and kept them in a vacant site. It is alleged that because of this, the puppies could not go back to their mother and died in the sun. However, there is no clarity whether the bitch was also not able to reach her puppies," the Court said in its January 11 order.It noted that the convict Ponnamma had pleaded guilty before the trial court and was convicted and sentenced to pay fine with a sentence of simple imprisonment only on default of payment of fine. "Now the convict 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 in the trial court's judgment," the High Court held. .The convict had on March 15, 2016, removed the puppies from the drain near her residence and kept them in an open area. She then blocked the drain due to which the pups and their mother could not go back to the drain.The 20-day-old puppies then died without the milk of their mother.The convict pleaded guilty to the offence pursuant to which the trial court convicted her on January 23, 2017 and the sessions court upheld the same on August 6, 2019. However, dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence, the complainant Harish, a Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, filed an appeal before the High Court..The complainant argued that the trial court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and therefore erred in imposing only fine on the convict. On the other hand, the State counsel pointed out that the convict had herself pleaded guilty and therefore, the trial court rightly convicted her and imposed fine. The Court in its judgment emphasised that the provisions under which the accused was convicted provided for either a jail term or a fine or both. Further, it noted that section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) doesn't permit the complainant to file an appeal against the quantum of punishment. It only allows the complainant to challenge the acquittal or less compensation. Hence, it dismissed the appeal..Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastin along with advocate Girish YL appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Adithya S Kumar and Channappa Erappa represented the State. .[Read Judgment]