KOLKATA: It is a pet owner’s duty to ensure that his/her pets do not harm others, Calcutta High Court has said in a recent order, turning down a man’s plea to quash a criminal case slapped on him.
“The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, a pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm,” Justice Uday Kumar said in an order on May 23.The Sonarpur man was charged under IPC Section 289 after a resident of his apartment complex filed a police complaint saying he was attacked by 10-12 of the man’s pet dogs, leading to injuries. The alleged attack occurred on the roof of the residential building in 2022. The pet owner moved HC seeking dismissal of the criminal charges, which he said were false. He claimed he had only one dog and a medical report of the complainant stated there was “no obvious external injury”.Justice Kumar, however, held that whether the investigation was “botched” was a matter to be tested during trial, when the accused could highlight these lapses. He noted that even though the medical report did not show “obvious external injury” as claimed by the defence, the complaint itself alleged an “attack” by dogs, leading to a “fall” and “injury”. “Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping ‘many dogs…unchained on the roof of a housing’, which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury,” the judge observed.Section 289 IPC, Justice Uday Kumar said, imposed a “duty on the owner or possessor of an animal” to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt from such an animal. He also observed that the exact nature and extent of the injury, and its correlation with the alleged dog attack, were disputed questions of fact. These discrepancies needed to be taken before the trial court, and the HC could assume “the role of a fact-finding authority”.The judge said 289 IPC specifically uses “knowingly or negligently omits”, emphasizing either actual knowledge of the animal’s harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management.While the police charge sheet said the 10-12 dogs belong to the accused, the pet owner disputed the fact highlighting the absence of documentary proof like municipal registration, veterinary records, purchase receipts and photographic evidence.
