Killing of stray sparks campaign for justice, PCA amendment

The incident sparked outrage on social media. Under the hashtag #justiceforjai, the posts claim the accused had been let off on bail at a mere ₹50, which was refuted by a police officer from Amboli police station

MUMBAI: On the heels of the killing of a stray dog in Lokhandwala, Andheri, in the wee hours of Sunday, a campaign has erupted on ground and online, calling for justice for the animal. The dog called Jai, along with his brother Veeru, was taken care of from 2020 by the residents of a building in Lokhandwala. “We considered him our child,” said actor Sudhanshu Pandey, who was one of the first people to see Jai dead on Sunday morning, lying in a pool of blood. “We are heartbroken. His brother too is scared and hasn’t been eating since then.”

The deceased dog Jai.

Another resident and dog carer, Shivani Sharma, then went and registered an FIR with the Amboli police. As per the FIR, the dog ran after a girl, the daughter of the accused on Saturday night. This elicited a threat from the accused. CCTV footage then showed the accused walk out of the building with a stick at around 1.20 am.

The incident sparked outrage on social media. Under the hashtag #justiceforjai, the posts claim the accused had been let off on bail at a mere ₹50, which was refuted by a police officer from Amboli police station. “The accused has not been arrested yet, which means there is no question of bail, at a bond or ₹50 or any amount. As per the procedure, we have sent him a notice under Section 41 A of the CrPC and investigations are on.”

Meet Ashar, Cruelty Case Division Legal Advisor and Manager at PETA India, also reiterated the unlikelihood of bail being given for ₹50, and the false notion that bail would mean the case had been wrapped up. “While the offence is bailable, and the amount for bail is typically higher, the case is far from over just because of it. An investigation will be conducted, a chargesheet filed, and a trial conducted, and only after this will a punishment be decided.”

While the punishment for cruelty to animals—be it harm, torture or death—prescribed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, is a maximum fine of ₹50 for first-time offenders, that is not the only section the accused has been charged under. “The FIR has also been filed under Section 429 of the IPC, which deals with the maiming and killing of animals and carries a punishment of jail time up to five years, fine, or both,” said Ashar.

As an example that such offenders are not let off easily, Ashar cited a similar case in Navi Mumbai in 2015. The trial court in 2021 fined both the accused ₹20,000 each, along with community service at an animal protection institute..

Meanwhile, the animal rights NGO Paws Hunger began preparations for a peaceful protest or candlelight march on the coming weekend in the hope of calling more attention to the dog’s killing and with hopes of asserting pressure on the government to amend the PCA Act.

Both Ashar and Sarthak Moudgil, founder of Paws Hunger, have the same issues with the law. “To start with, such heinous crimes should be made a non-bailable offence,” said Moudgil. “It is only the immediate threat of jail that will deter people. As attention on the incident wanes, and the trial takes its own time, there is a chance the accused might get away with it lightly.”

Their second grievance is that the PCA Act metes out very little punishment. The relevant sections of the IPC—Sections 428 and 429—make up for the leniencies of the PCA Act but, argued Ashar, why should that be the case? “The IPC is an umbrella act which deals with all crimes,” he said. “But if we have a dedicated act for animal welfare, why isn’t that fulfilling the purpose it was set up for?”

PETA has been struggling to get the PCA Act amended. “Despite there being a Supreme Court order of 2014 in the infamous Jalikattu case directing Parliament to amend the Act, it hasn’t been done,” said Ashar. “In 2021, the ministry of fisheries, animal husbandry and dairying called for suggestions on a draft amendment, but it has been three years after that with no change.”