Introduction
Animals have always suffered a great deal of pain by humans, in terms of various forms of violence and torture by exploiting them for human needs and gratification. But this form of abuse was not enough; people sexually assault animals for their pleasure. Cases like a 3-year-old female dog allegedly been raped by a group of men in Chikkanayakanahalli, 4 men arrested for gang-raping a monitor lizard, then killing and eating it (March 2022) only make the headlines of the newspaper.
These horrifying cases, along with many more, show the state of the country towards animal welfare, and how India’s new penal code, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has created a protection gap for animals, and why this gap must be filled.
Animal sexual Abuse
Any kind of sexual activity between a human being and an animal is called ‘Bestiality’. It is a type of animal abuse which is considered to be a serious form of animal cruelty and exploitation, since animals cannot give consent. This act is highly criticized by ethical and societal standards due to its concern about animal welfare. According to FIAPO, every 8th case of cruelty against animal is sexual assault or rape, and animal rape occurs at the same rate as human rape of 20 per 1,00,000.
Yet there’s no proper statistics or report about these crimes, and so criminals remain largely unpunished. Unlike human victims who can seek redressal, animals cannot speak, and so cannot seek justice. Earlier, India had criminalized acts of bestiality under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code 1860, though not primarily designed for animal protection, but at least state could prosecute the offender on the grounds of ‘unnatural’ conduct of the act as criminal, and imposed serious penalties.
However, India’s new penal code, BNS, has entirely erased the criminalization, that somehow protected the voiceless from sexual abuse. Today, more than a year after the implementation of BNS, India is facing a number of sexual abuse cases towards animals, especially stray dogs and farm animals, but nation still has no express criminal offence against the offenders.
This need for criminalizing is not only for protecting animals, but also to protect others from the offender, as it is the established link between animal cruelty and violence against human beings, and is therefore considered to be a potential warning signal or future interpersonal crimes.
What changed
Section 377 of IPC stated: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Although Supreme Court of India in the Navtej Singh Johar (2018) [1]case had partially struck down Section 377 by decriminalizing consensual same‑sex relations, and so the court explicitly stated that this section will, however, continue to govern sexual acts pertaining to animals. It read down, retaining its application to:
- Non‑consensual sexual acts against adults
- All carnal intercourse with minors
- Acts of bestiality
In the eyes of law, animal cannot give consent; therefore, any sexual act with an animal remained criminal, irrespective of the penetration or harm caused.
When Parliament enacted BNS to replace IPC, it was considered a big step towards changing the Indian criminal law as a modernized law, which is considered to be code written for contemporary society, gendered neutral and offences updated, reflecting the 21st century realities. But in this grand reform, something crucial was lost, that is the complete omission of provision relating to animal sexual abuse.
The Section 325 of BNS does contain provision which addresses – “mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal,” carrying punishment up to five years’ imprisonment. It is much stronger provision than the weak penalties mentioned under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. But Section 325, though, does not certainly mention or address the sexual violence as an act of cruelty.
An offender who sexually assaults an animal cannot be tried under this section, because rape is not killing, poisoning or maiming an animal. This deliberate choice of dropping Section 377 entirely and ignoring the Parliamentary standing Committee on Home Affairs, chaired by Mr. Brij Lal[2], submitted the report by reviewing the bill, and specifically recommended including Section 377, and it noted that omitting it would mean not penalizing non‑consensual sexual offences against men, transgenders, and bestiality. The committee’s report was ignored, and with it, so were the voiceless victims of animal sexual abuse.
Legal Reality
As it is noted in Section 325 of BNS, for penalizing an offender one requires proof of killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering an animal useless. But many of these acts of sexual violence do not result in visible injury, harm or permanent disability. So, a perpetrator who commits a sexual assault and avoids causing any injury cannot be prosecuted under section.
The Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1860 defines “cruelty” to animals, but does not explicitly mention sexual violence against animals. Courts have sometimes tried to stretch the definition to cover sexual abuse as a form of cruelty, but it was often unclear and ambiguous.
The penalties given under this act are also very trivial – for first offence, fine of ₹10 to ₹50 only, and for second offence, fine of ₹25 to ₹100, or imprisonment up to three months, or both. This shows the cost of an animal cruelty is just equal to a cost of a cup of tea, which is simply insulting to the severity of a crime.
Advocacy organizations like Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations (FIAPO) documented, between 2010 and 2020, roughly 4,93,910 animals as victims of crimes by humans; approx. 82 cases involved sexual abuse[3]. However, activists argue that actual numbers are higher due to underreporting and lack of awareness. This shows the hollow nature of India’s current animal protection law when confronted with sexual violence.
What the law should Provide
A modern penal code should explicitly define bestiality and all forms of sexual conduct with animals, including penetration, insertion of objects, and forced oral acts, all covered under a single provision. It should also criminalize sexual violence and provide appropriate punishment, such as imprisonment up to 5 years and fines. For more serious cases, the offence should be made cognizable and non‑bailable, indicating its gravity. The law should recognize the animal as a victim, and so mandate necessary rehabilitation for them.
Conclusion
India’s new penal code, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, neglected defining and criminalizing bestiality, leaving animals without clear legal protection from sexual abuse, as Section 325 fails to cover sexual violence, creating a protection gap. Without specific provisions, offenders escape punishment, even though cruelty laws exist, but it carries trivial penalties. To address this, law must define and penalize bestiality, so that it will strengthen animal welfare, protecting the voiceless from exploitation.
References:
- https://www.hasindia.org/img/news/resources/animal-law-docs/Sexual-Crimes-Against-Animals.pdf-Sexual Crimes Against Animals calling for laws to protect animals from sexual assault – FAIPO, May 2025
- https://www.vosd.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Sexual-Abuse-of-Stray-Dogs-in-India.pdf-“Sexual Abuse of Street Dogs in India”: An analysis of the phenomenon, the law, 1st hand accounts & press reporting by ‘The Voice of Stray Dogs’
- https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/standing-committee-report-summary-4278-Standing Committee Report Summary, Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case is (2018) 10 SCC
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1860
[1]Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case is (2018) 10 SCC 1
[2]PRSIndia- Standing Committee Report
[3]FAIPO, May 2025
Author Name- Kumari Eesha. S
Course- B.A.LL.B (H), 3rd year
Institution- Maharaja Saiyajirao University, Faculty of Law
