Make cattle killing non-bailable offence: Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has granted a further one month's time to the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to make the act of mischievously killing or maiming cattle, including cows, a non-bailable offence by amending Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code.

On March 1, 2017, Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao while dismissing a criminal revision petition said that in September 2014, the High Court had directed both governments to take steps to amend Section 429 of the IPC to make the above offence non-bailable since the subject was in the concurrent list, and also to amend Sections 11 and 26 of the Prevention of  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to consider enhancement of the punishment at  par with  Section 429  IPC if  not  more equally in Section 10 of the AP Cow Slaughter Act, 1977.

Cow mischief: HC gives state month to amend law
Maintaining that there was no progress in this regard, Judge Siva Sankara Rao ruled that “it is also the need to amend the certificate if issued of a healthy cow or bull or calf as if not fit and to permit from such certificate to slaughter the veterinary doctor who issued such certificate is also liable for penal consequences by incorporating in Section 10 of AP Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 making it as cognizable and non-bailable offence, besides attracting of other penal provisions of IPC.”

While dealing with the plea of Ramavath Hanuma of Nalgonda district, the judge framed a question: “whether a person claiming to be  owner or  representing the owner, either to kill or to sell for slaughter, entitled to interim custody of cows and bulls seized  from him...?”

M.A. Mukheet, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cows were grazing in open place and that there was no cruelty that would attract Section 11 of the Act of 1960 and even Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Act of 1977 do not apply, and that handing over of animals to gaushalas was illegal.

The public prosecutor of the state contended that the  order  of  the  lower court  holds  good  and  there was  prima  facie  accusation   under   the   Act   II   of   1977   and   the   procedure  was  established  by  law  that  on  information  that  cows  are  being  subjected  to  slaughter  for  sacrifice on  the occasion of a Muslim festival, the police are entitled to seize the cattle and it was not wrong to entrust the animals to gaushalas. While upholding the order of the lower court, the judge pointed out that it was not the end of the issue, negating the contention of the petitioner, but to answer further on the contention raised on religious sacrifices.

The judge noted that “in this country for those in belief who represent a majority of population, cow is a substitute to mother, who is a substitute to God.  The cow in particular acquires a special sanctity   and   was   called   Aghnya (not to be slain). Thus, cow is a sacred national wealth  and  no  one  merely  owned  can  claim,  but  for  to  rear, either to kill or to sell for slaughter”

Citing the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas, the judge noted that "Cows are equivalent to our mothers for when the mother's milk has dried up, the cow gives her milk unselfishly. How can  one  justify the killing of such a mother?”

The judge said, “So   from   these   examples   it   can   be   clearly  understood  that  cow  killing  and  cow  eating  were  definitely not sanctioned by the scriptures. According to Bible cow killing is not sanctioned in the Christian religion either.”

While granting the order the judge directed the Registry to communicate this order to chief secretaries of both governments to take necessary steps and report compliance by June 5.

When this case came up for hearing, the PPs of both states asked for more time and the judge granted time till July 7 to report compliance.