Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dadar: In a criminal case filed under Sections 324, 289 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against a man who let his dog bite his neighbour, the Single Judge Bench of Suhas Vijaya P. Bhosale, J., convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 289 of the IPC, holding that the accused knowingly and voluntarily omitted to take such order with his pet dog as would have been sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from his pet to the informant.
Background
The informant and the accused were neighbours who lived in the same building. On the day of the incident, the informant, along with his son and servant, was using the lift when the accused tried to enter it with his pet dog. The informant requested the accused to let him, and his family go down first as his son was cynophobic (fear of dogs). However, the accused dragged his dog inside the lift and sicced (commanding/inciting a dog to chase or attack) him. The dog bit the informant’s left forearm. Thereafter, the informant and his family exited the lift and the accused followed them, asking them to do whatever they wanted. Aggrieved, the informant lodged a report (‘oral report’) about the incident after receiving medical treatment.
Based on this report, an investigation was conducted and a police report was lodged. Accordingly, the present case came to be.
Issues and Analysis
1. Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant using his pet dog and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC?
At the outset, the Court noted that the evidence of the informant and his servant remained unshaken during the cross-examination. Additionally, the informant’s evidence was consistent with his previous statement, i.e., the oral report.
The Court also noted that the informant’s testimony was corroborated by another witness as well. The Court rejected the contention that the servant’s testimony was not reliable since he was an interested witness, stating that the contention could not be sustained since the servant was cited in the oral report. His presence inside the lift, i.e., the spot of the incident, at the relevant time was not falsified by the accused. The Court stated that merely because the witness was the servant of the informant, his evidence could not be brushed aside if it was otherwise trustworthy. Further, there was nothing brought on record to discredit this witness.
Upon perusal of the CCTV evidence, the Court noted that the footage showed what had happened outside the lift before and after the incident, and to some extent, it corroborates with the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the medical certificate was also consistent with the informant’s case and strengthened his testimony regarding the bite marks on his left wrist.
Considering the facts and evidence, the Court held that it appeared that the act of the accused was certainly voluntary. Evidence on record showed that though the informant resisted him taking his dog inside the lift, he dragged the dog, who then sicced and bit the left hand of the informant. The Court remarked that all incriminating evidence was referred to the accused, but with mere denial, he could not defend his case.
Since oral evidence of material witnesses remained unshaken during cross-examination, and the circumstantial evidence like medical certificate, spot panchanama, and electronic record corroborated the informant’s testimony, the Court held that it appeared more reliable and trustworthy. Furthermore, prompt FIR after medical treatment left no room for doubt of afterthought implications.
Thus, the Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved all material ingredients of Section 324 of the IPC.
2. Whether the accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with any animal in his possession that would have been sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 289 of the IPC?
On perusal of the evidence on record, the Court held that the accused knowingly omitted to take such order with his pet dog as would have been sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from his pet to the informant, his son, and servant. Thus, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to prove all material ingredients of Section 289 of the IPC.
3. Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening the informant with injury and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC?
The Court stated that the informant did not utter a word about criminal intimidation by threatening with injury in his evidence. Further, it appeared that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charge punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Thus, the Court held that the charge under Section 506 was not made out.
Decision
Considering how the accused dragged his pet inside the lift, the Court remarked that it showed that he was not compassionate towards his pet. He did not care about the informant or his one-and-a-half-year-old son and dragged his pet inside the lift, which was normally meant for use by humans. Considering the punishment prescribed for the offences proved and the facts of the case, the Court held that the accused was certainly not entitled to much leniency.
The Court stated that while quantifying the sentence, the suffering of the victim cannot be overlooked. The informant, who is the victim of the crime, might have suffered after the incident both physically and mentally. Certainly, for his suffering, he cannot be compensated in terms of money, but imposing a fine and directing its payment to the informant would give him some relief.
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for Section 324 of the IPC, and on account of Section 289 of the IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and paid a fine of Rs. 1,000. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[State of Maharashtra v. Rishab Maushik Patel, Case No. 6200569/PW/2018, decided on 21-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Enakphale, A.P.P
For the respondent: R.R. Mishra
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
