Mumbai Court Sentences Businessman To 3 Months Imprisonment For Negligence After His 'Aggressive' Rottweiler Dog Attacked 72-Yr-Old Relative

A Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Mumbai convicted and sentenced a businessman to three months imprisonment for negligence under Section 289 of the IPC after his Rottweiler dog attacked a 72-year-old relative and bit him thrice thirteen years ago. Metropolitan Magistrate Nadeem Patel observed that being the owner, convict Cyrus Hormusji was fully aware of the dog’s aggressive nature. Despite this he let out the barking angry dog from the car. “When such type of aggressive dog was taken to the public place it is the duty of the owner of the dog to take reasonable care for the safety of others,” the court remarked. Further refusing leniency the bench said “where there is question of public safety leniency is unwarranted.” “The age of the informant is 72 years at such old age the strong and aggressive dog attacked him and took three bites. When the person like accused who is grown up man was going in the public place with such aggressive dog, if reasonable care not taken then certainly it is harmful for the public.” It was the prosecution’s case that the convict came along with his wife and two dogs to meet the complainant Kersi Irani in his building compound at Nepean Sea Road regarding a property dispute. As their discussion got louder, the dogs began barking inside the car. Despite warning the convict against opening the car’s door, the big black dog was let loose on him. The dog first caught hold of Irani’s right leg calf. He fell down after which the dog again bit his calf and arm above the elbow. The Malabar Hill police registered the offence against Hosmuji. Following the examination of five witnesses, including Irani’s son, the doctor who examined Irani and vet who examined the dog, Hormusji was found guilty under Sections 289 (negligent act regarding an animal) and 337 of the IPC. It was Hormusji’s defence that no independent witness was examined to prove his presence at the scene of the crime, the Rottweiler wasn’t his neither was the car. Moreover, there was improvisations in Irani and his son’s statements. At the outset the court noted that all ingredients of Section 289 were made out against Hormusji. The dog was in his possession, he knew of its aggression and hadn’t taken sufficient care to guard it against danger to human life. Rottweilers are famous for their powerful and forceful bite and are the strongest breeds of dogs, the court noted. “It is specifically deposed by Kersi Irani (PW1) that the dog was trying to come out of car it means that at the time of opening the door of the car the accused knows that the dog was angry. Inspite of that without taking reasonable care he has open the door of the car due to which the said dog bite the informant.” The court rejected the argument that merely because an independent witness wasn’t examined, the accused wasn’t present in view of the victim and his son’s eye witness testimony. “Generally in the police matters people not coming forward to get their statement recorded as a witness. Therefore, people are reluctant to go to the police station even though they are witnessed to the incident. Therefore, in these circumstances it is very difficult to find the eyewitness.” Moreover, it wasn’t necessary for the car to be in Hormusji’s name the ownership of the car had little to do with the incident. “Anyone can take the car of family member or friend to meet someone.”

Mumbai Court Sentences Businessman To 3 Months Imprisonment For Negligence After His 'Aggressive' Rottweiler Dog Attacked 72-Yr-Old Relative

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags