Delhi HC seeks Centre's stand on PIL against MCD's power to 'destroy' unregistered dogs
New Delhi, Oct 21: The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the Centre and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on a petition challenging the civic body's power to "detain" and "destroy" unregistered and unclaimed dogs found wandering in public places.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a notice on the public interest litigation petition filed by Kamini Khanna, who has claimed that she has moved the plea "on behalf of all dogs of Delhi" and that "the recent incidents of dog bites in Noida and Ghaziabad were staged".
"Issue notice. Let a reply be filed before the next date of hearing. List on February 10, 2023," the court said in its order passed on October 14.
The petition has also challenged a recent MCD advisory asking citizens to register their pets in light of an increasing number of dog-bite cases and sought a direction to restrain the authorities from removing, killing or harming any street dog.
It has argued that care-givers may be discouraged from providing meals to the community dogs as they would want to wriggle out of the responsibility to get the dogs registered, which would deprive the animals of "one decent meal" and also "give arbitrary power" to the MCD to "kill dogs, remove dogs, detain dogs, which could also result in extortion and can have serious implication on law and order and the health of the community dogs".
The petitioner said section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act enables the MCD to "kill dogs in an arbitrary manner", which is in direct conflict with Article 51 of the Constitution and the law on animal protection.
Emphasising on the fundamental right to life, the plea says it is the duty of every citizen as well as the State to safeguard animals and the environment and that the provisions under challenge "encourage cruelty against dogs".
"Under sub-section 1(d) of section 399, a dog which had been detained if not claimed within one week of such detention, shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of unless it is claimed and the fee is paid within one week. Under sub-section 2(b) of section 399, the commissioner of MCD through a public notice can direct...(that) dogs which are without marks, distinguishing them as private property, and are found straying on the streets or beyond the enclosure of their houses of their owners, if any, may be destroyed and cause them to be destroyed accordingly," the plea says.
It adds that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act enumerates situations when an animal can be destroyed, which includes a situation when it would be cruel to keep it alive.
The petition alleges that the colony and traders' welfare associations in her area are working to remove all dogs there, while "leaving no stone unturned to remove the dogs illegally and planning to get them killed with aid and assistance from MCD".
"The petitioner believes that the recent incidents of dog bites in Noida and Ghaziabad were staged, pursuant to which the advisory from the MCD was issued," the plea says, asserting that the petitioner is "well aware of the ground realities concerning the abuse of dogs".
The plea has also submitted that "acts of cruelty to animals are often indicative of a deep mental disturbance" and such abusers also "move on to harming humans".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
