Mumbai, Jan 22: Mumbai witnessed two horrifying incidents of sexual abuse of dogs in the past few days that have shaken animal welfare circles. The gravity of these crimes has ignited a fierce debate over India’s evolving legal landscape, with activists warning that recent changes to the criminal code have left animals more vulnerable than ever.
Malad puppy abuse case
On Sunday, Vikas Paswan (20) was nabbed red-handed by a local animal feeder and other residents while allegedly sexually abusing a two-month-old puppy inside a public toilet of Narayan Shukla Chawl in Malad’s Kurar village.
The accused, who is also a resident of the same chawl, had allegedly abused the defenceless puppy after locking it inside but was caught after locals heard the puppy screaming.
Residents rushed the dog to a nearby veterinary clinic, where the doctor confirmed that it was sexually abused through unnatural intercourse. The Kurar police booked Paswan under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act.
Kandivali Rottweiler incident
In a similar incident that occurred on January 9 in Kandivali, a pet Rottweiler was sexually harassed by its owner’s guest, who allegedly performed oral sex with the dog when none of the family members were around.
However, the dog’s owner came to know about the act the next day after watching footage on an indoor CCTV camera. The incident led to a physical assault of the perpetrator by the owner and animal activists.
Legal hurdles in FIR registration
However, an FIR was not registered in this case due to limitations of the law. Shiraj Ahmad, founder of Humanity World Foundation, said, “The police could not register an FIR because there was no penetration involved. They are bound by the laws, which now have no provision for sexual abuse of animals. We need to have stricter laws for sexual abuse of animals because today it is animals and tomorrow it can be little girls in the neighbourhood.”
Gaps in existing laws
While Section 325 of the BNS deals with “mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal”, and carries a punishment of up to five years, activists argue it is insufficient for sexual crimes as it is a bailable offence.
On the other hand, Section 11(1)(a) of the PCA Act—the primary law for animal protection—carries a penalty as low as Rs 50 for first-time offenders, a figure often mocked by activists as a “licence to kill”.
Concerns over removal of IPC Section 377
Animal rights activists are sounding the alarm over what they call a “legal vacuum” created by the transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
They also highlighted that under the IPC, sexual acts against animals were prosecuted under Section 377 as unnatural sex and carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, the newly enacted BNS does not have a direct equivalent to the erstwhile section regarding animals.
Activists demand amendments
Sanket Bhatt, Maharashtra head of Yuva Sena Animal Welfare Force and founder of JeevOne Welfare Foundation, said, “These incidents highlight a major omission of Section 377 in the BNS, which enabled prosecution for carnal intercourse with animals. The BNS has removed this provision, leaving police without a specific section to address bestiality or sexual violence against animals. As a result, such cases are being diluted under minor provisions like mischief or basic cruelty clauses—punishments that do not reflect the gravity of the crime.”
Activists have demanded an immediate amendment to the BNS and PCA to reintroduce stringent punishments for sexual offenders, criminalise animal rape under non-bailable sections, and reflect modern inflation and the severity of modern crimes.
Also Watch:
Call for stronger protection
Roshan Pathak, animal rights advisor at Pure Animal Lovers (PAL) Welfare Foundation, said, “The current animal cruelty section under BNS is very weak and therefore animal activists and police have to somehow manage these cases under the section meant for killing or maiming of animals. Sexual exploitation of an animal is a far more serious crime. Animals feel the same pain as humans when forced into such acts.”
However, a few animal activists also believe that Section 325 is powerful enough to penalise an accused if interpreted correctly by complainants and the police.
Xavier Santiago, an animal welfare Activist who played a key role in getting the FIR registered in the Kurar village case, said, “The section originally includes killing, maiming or rendering useless any part of an animal which is often translated in Marathi as making an animal handicapped. This confusion had to be solved before getting the FIR registered. Legal experts, who helped us with this, believe that once the trial starts, the court can update the sections and even include the omitted 377 to try the perpetrator as a rapist. This case can become a landmark judgement against animal cruelty leading to an imprisonment of upto 10 years."
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
