Question

Mark the best option:
Principles:

1. The word animal denotes any living creature, other than a human being.
2. Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief.
3. Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animals or animal of value, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
4. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a law Latin a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Facts: Unknown to either Rajat or Kunal, Kunal's pet dog, a pug had entered the section of the lab with the virus on Kunal's last visit to the lab. It was in the section when Rajat broke in and increased the temperature. The pug died due to the heat. Is Rajat liable to punishment under Principle 3 above?

Options

• Yes, since increasing the heat killed the pug.

• Yes, since although the killing of the pug was accidental, it was not done in the course of a lawful act.

• No, since in killing Kunal's pug, Rajat did not have the intent (or the knowledge of likelihood) to commit mischief by killing the pug.

• No, since Kunal should have taken better care of the pug by not leaving it behind

Answer 1

No, since in killing Kunal's pug, Rajat did not have the intent (or the knowledge of likelihood) to commit mischief by killing the pug.
Rajat has no intention to kill Kunal's dog. Neither he had knowledge of the presence of dog nor he had any criminal intention to kill it.