By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
In a recent case, an FIR was filed by Bajrang Dal activists at a Navi Mumbai police station which evoked interest. The complainant had alleged that a goat tied to a pole outside one Mohammed Shafi’s mutton shop had the word “Ram” painted on its skin. Following this incident, Shafi’s shop, also known as “Goodluck Goat Meat Shop” which operates in Belapur, was sealed and 22 of his goats seized.
It all started with a viral video showing a white goat with the word “Ram” in yellow on its skin at a meat shop. In the video, the shopkeeper and the Hindu group members assembled there are seen arguing, while the police tries to manage the situation. Following a long legal quagmire, three persons, namely Mohammad Shafi Sheikh, Sajid Shafi Sheikh and Kuyyam, were arrested and the meat shop sealed. Those arrested were charged under Sections 295(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for hurting religious sentiments, as well as under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Meanwhile, social media users and Hindu outfits called for harsh punishment against the offenders.
On inquiry it was found that the goat was intended for sale by a customer in Belapur on the occasion of Eid ul-Adha, commonly known as Bakr-id. Finally, after two months, the police recorded the statement of the man who bought the goat from Shafi: the “Ram” on the goat, he told the police, stood for his initials—Riyaz Ahmed Mithani.
The trend of self-proclaimed vigilantes picking up issues that allegedly hurt their religious sentiments is not a new one. In the recent past, the VHP moved the Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jalpaiguri district, challenging the forest department’s naming of a lioness Sita and a lion Akbar, thereby adding an unnecessary communal angle to a normal process in zoological areas. The contention raised by the VHP was that the practice of keeping the two animals in the same enclosure at the North Bengal Wild Animals Park in Siliguri was “irrational”, “illogical” and “tantamount to blasphemy and sacrilegious”. The state minister also got involved and defended the issue by saying: “We did not give the names, maybe they were originally given by Tripura zoo…. Vishwa Hindu Parishad is doing dirty politics.” It turned out that the two big cats were brought to Siliguri zoo from Tripura’s Sepahijala Zoo along with eight other animals as part of an animal exchange programme.
The VHP in its petition filed before the High Court stated: “That to the utmost surprise of the petitioners on 14/02/2024 Uttar Banga Sambad carried a news item with the heading ‘Sangirkhoje astir Sita’ (Sita restless in search of a partner). Incidentally the male lion was given the name of ‘Akbar’. The said article had indicated in a lewd way and represented the news in a much objectionable manner which was bound to hurt the religious sentiments of all Hindus across the country.”
The petition further stated: “The Bengal Safari Park has named the female lion as ‘Sita’. By using the name of ‘Sita’ for a lioness, the respondent authority is hurting religious sentiments of Sanatan Dharma…” “Such naming of a cat family after a religious deity, namely Sita, is irrational, illogical…The outrageous nomenclature has angered petitioners’ religious sentiments. That it is stated by the petitioner that such naming of animals after the name of religious deities is very much sacrilegious and tantamount to blasphemy…” the petition stated.
An official from Sepahijala Zoo and Wildlife Sanctuary in Tripura reportedly said: “A pair of lions was sent to the North Bengal Wildlife Park as part of an animal exchange programme. We had sent four black bucks, two lions, two spectacled monkeys and two leopard cats in exchange for two tigers, golden pheasants, silver pheasants and Hill Mynas. We had sent a lion and a lioness named Ram and Sita respectively from Sepahijala. We are not aware of what happened at the destination.”
Strange cases pertaining to animals have never failed to create a furore. In another case, where fact seemed stranger than fiction, the Uttar Pradesh police filed a chargesheet against a 30-year-old potter accused of killing a rat by tying it to a brick and drowning it in a drain. People naturally alleged that the police department these days was “quicker to take action when the safety of rats was in question”.
Some crimes against animals take a horrific turn. In one such case, a putrid smell emanated from a van, leading authorities to 1,112 turtles, of which over 100 had died after being baked, crushed and starved inside burlap bags. Another 979 were found severely dehydrated.
Then there are cases where action has also been taken against animals for harming humans. In 2013, Ramachandran, an elephant in Kerala, was arrested for killing three persons. The animal was kept in supervision and a criminal case filed against it. The owner had to make a hefty payment to get the animal released.
Then there was another case where three goats out of 12 were arrested after they were accused of trying to damage a police vehicle. The goats had purportedly climbed onto a brand new police car and damaged its wipers and glass. They were later released on a request by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
One of the prime reasons why the police is always on the lookout for crimes committed by or against the animals is because sometimes they are a prelude to bigger crimes that often involve humans. The links between early cruelty to animals and later violent and aggressive crime have been documented for decades. But now academic research has uncovered wider, chilling evidence of the psychological effect on children of witnessing cruelty to animals.
In a study conducted in Romania by researchers from Teesside University, it was revealed that nearly nine teenagers out of 10—a staggering 86.3%—thought it was “normal” to see homeless animals being abused or killed. The teenagers were also found to be more likely than youngsters in Germany, a control group, to later self-harm or have suicidal tendencies. As children, nearly all of those questioned had witnessed street animals being caught in a noose, poisoned or hanged.
These cases point to ground-breaking findings which could revolutionise the way in which abuse behind closed doors is tackled worldwide and how to prevent harrowing cases of domestic violence and murder each year, as well as abuse of children and the elderly. The researchers believed their work can even be adapted to prevent prisoners from carrying out other violent crimes.
It cannot be denied that if animal abuse is prevented in the first place by the threat of severe punishments, not only will pets and strays cease to be soft targets, youngsters will also be prevented from using them as a step towards crime.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi