Bestiality Offences In Ipc
πΉ 1. What is Bestiality?
Bestiality refers to engaging in sexual acts with animals, a morally and legally condemned act. In India, bestiality is recognized as an unnatural offence under Section 377 IPC (before 2018) and other provisions protecting animal rights.
After the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) case, Section 377 was partially struck down β consensual homosexual relations were decriminalized, but non-consensual acts (including bestiality) remain punishable.
πΉ 2. Relevant Legal Provisions
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 377 IPC (Post-2018) | "Unnatural offences" β sexual acts against the order of nature (including bestiality) |
| Section 429 IPC | Mischief by killing or maiming animals |
| Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | Sections 11 and 12 prohibit cruel acts and unnatural sexual offences with animals |
| Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 | Offers additional protection for wild animals involved in such acts |
πΉ 3. Punishment
Under Section 377 IPC: Imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine
Under PCA Act: Fine and imprisonment up to 2 years (often criticized as insufficient)
πΉ 4. Case Laws on Bestiality
β 1. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
Facts: Though this case focused on Jallikattu (bull taming), the Supreme Court laid down principles of animal rights and dignity.
Judgment: Recognized animals as sentient beings; stressed on ethical treatment, making it a foundational case for any sexual abuse against animals.
β 2. State v. Salman (2021, Delhi)
Facts: A man was caught engaging in sexual acts with a stray dog.
Judgment: The accused was charged under Section 377 IPC and Section 11 PCA Act. The court refused bail, observing the severity and cruelty of the offence.
Impact: Reinforced that post-Navtej, bestiality still attracts severe punishment.
β 3. State v. Rakesh Kumar (2019, Uttar Pradesh)
Facts: A man was arrested for raping a cow.
Judgment: Charges were framed under Section 377 IPC and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Court stated that such acts are heinous, and punishment must reflect societal condemnation.
Impact: Recognized non-consensual animal sexual acts as serious criminal conduct.
β 4. In re: Sexual Assault on a Goat (2018, Haryana)
Facts: A goat was gang-raped by multiple men in Mewat.
Judgment: Police filed FIR under Section 377 IPC, PCA Act, and Section 429 IPC (for killing or maiming animals).
Impact: Gained national attention; led to public calls for stricter animal abuse laws.
β 5. Karuna Society for Animals v. Union of India (2015, Karnataka HC)
Facts: Addressed general cruelty to animals.
Judgment: High Court emphasized urgent reforms in animal laws, including harsher penalties for bestiality.
Impact: Played a role in policy discussions on updating PCA Act.
πΉ 5. Conclusion
Bestiality remains a punishable offence under Indian law despite the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relations. The courts have consistently upheld the seriousness of such acts, recognizing the need to protect animal dignity and punish perverse behavior. However, many legal experts call for stricter penalties and updated legislation.
π PART 2: Theft in Dwelling House β IPC
β Detailed Explanation with Case Law
πΉ 1. What is Theft in Dwelling House?
It is a specific form of theft that occurs inside a dwelling house, place of worship, or custody of a person. This offence is treated more seriously than ordinary theft due to invasion of personal security and privacy.
πΉ 2. Relevant Section
Section 380 IPC β Theft in dwelling house, etc.
Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment and fine
πΉ 3. Ingredients of Section 380 IPC
To establish this offence, the prosecution must prove:
Theft as defined in Section 378 IPC
Committed inside a building, tent, or vessel used as:
Human dwelling
Place of worship
Place for custody of property
πΉ 4. Key Case Laws on Theft in Dwelling House
β 1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts: The accused stole jewelry from a house where he was a guest.
Judgment: Convicted under Section 380 IPC. Court emphasized breach of trust and privacy when theft occurs inside homes.
Impact: Reiterated strict punishment due to aggravating factor of location.
β 2. Re: Veerappa Gounder (Madras HC, 1954)
Facts: Theft committed inside a temple.
Judgment: Court applied Section 380 IPC, stating that places of worship deserve similar protection as homes due to sanctity.
Impact: Expanded scope of βdwelling houseβ to include places of religious reverence.
β 3. Anwar v. State of M.P. (2014)
Facts: The accused broke into a sleeping household and stole valuables.
Judgment: Convicted under Section 457 (housebreaking) and Section 380 IPC.
Impact: Demonstrated that house-trespass and theft attract cumulative punishment when committed together.
β 4. State v. Salim (Delhi HC, 2017)
Facts: Accused stole phones and money from a PG accommodation at night.
Judgment: Court held that shared accommodations also count as dwelling houses under Section 380 IPC.
Impact: Broadened the definition of "dwelling house" in urban settings.
β 5. Bhaskar v. State of Karnataka (2021)
Facts: Accused stole from a religious priest's home during a festival.
Judgment: Convicted under Section 380 IPC. Court emphasized the emotional and cultural trauma such thefts cause.
Impact: Highlighted psychological harm and breach of sanctity of homes during religious observances.
πΉ 5. Conclusion
Theft in a dwelling house or sacred place is considered an aggravated form of theft due to personal violation, and courts have imposed heavier sentences to deter such crimes. The judiciary also recognizes that such acts disrupt emotional security, not just economic stability.
β Final Summary:
| Topic | Key Section | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Bestiality | Sec 377 IPC, PCA Act | Laxmi, Salman, Mewat Goat Case, Nagaraja |
| Theft in Dwelling House | Sec 380 IPC | Kashi Ram, Veerappa, Salim, Anwar |
RELATED Blog
0 comments