Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Shivbharan Ayodhyaprasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 120 of 1916
Judge
Reported in(1916)18BOMLR682; 35Ind.Cas.815
AppellantEmperor
RespondentShivbharan Ayodhyaprasad
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 289 - negligent conduct with respect to animal.;the essential ingredient of an offence under section 289 of the indian penal code is that there should be probable danger to human life or limb from the negligence shown in the custody of the animal. - .....such order with a bull in his possession as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from the animal.2. mr. pilgaonkar has contended, and we think rightly, that the essential ingredient of this offence is that there should be probable danger to human life or limb from the negligence shown in the custody of the animal. that is the point upon which section 289 turns, and that is the point to which magistrates in administering this section should devote their attention.3. we are not clear that the point received sufficient attention in this case where the evidence goes to show no more than that the applicant's bull had on previous occasions fought with the complainant's bull. but in view of this evidence and the other.....
Judgment:

1. The applicant here has been convicted under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code in that he negligently omitted to take such order with a bull in his possession as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from the animal.

2. Mr. Pilgaonkar has contended, and we think rightly, that the essential ingredient of this offence is that there should be probable danger to human life or limb from the negligence shown in the custody of the animal. That is the point upon which Section 289 turns, and that is the point to which Magistrates in administering this section should devote their attention.

3. We are not clear that the point received sufficient attention in this case where the evidence goes to show no more than that the applicant's bull had on previous occasions fought with the complainant's bull. But in view of this evidence and the other circumstances on the record we think it right in this particular case to draw for ourselves the inference that the applicant in allowing this bull to be at large in spite of its previous character did so with knowledge that there was probable danger to human life or limb.

4. Therefore we discharge the rule.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //