New Delhi: Owners of “aggressive dogs” need proper care while taking their dogs to public places, a magistrate’s court in Mumbai has sentenced a pet owner to three months’ imprisonment for biting his 13-year-old Rottweiler, a 72-year-old relative. sentenced to. Earlier
The order, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Nadeem Patel on February 3, imposed a total fine of Rs 1,500 on Santacruz-based businessman Cyrus Percy Hormusjee, apart from the jail term.
The court noted that Rottweilers are “known for their aggression”, and are “renowned for (being) powerful and (a) forceful bite”. The Court then observed, “When such an aggressive dog is carried in a public place, it is the duty of the owner of the dog to take reasonable care for the safety of others. (sic)”
It was alleged that on 30 May 2010, Hormousji’s dog bit one Kersi Irani three times – on her calf and on her arm, while the two were standing near Hormousji’s car on Nepensia Road and were arguing over a property dispute .
As per the order, Hormusji had gone to Irani’s house that day to talk about a property dispute pending between them in court. He was accompanied by his wife and two dogs, a brown Labrador and a black Rottweiler. When Hormusji opened the car door, the dogs were in the car. It was then that the Rottweiler bit him in the presence of Irani’s son.
The prosecution alleged that Hormusji had opened the car door despite the dogs “barking ferociously”, and that Irani had repeatedly asked Hormusji not to open it.
While sentencing, the court said that leniency is inappropriate in the case as it is a matter of public safety.
The age of the informant is 72 years, at such an advanced age a strong and aggressive dog attacked him and bit him three times. When a person like the accused who is a grown up, is going to a public place with such an aggressive dog, if proper care is not taken, surely it is harmful to the public, (sic)” it observed.
The court convicted Hormusji under Indian Penal Code sections 289 (negligent conduct in relation to animals) and 337 (causing injury to life or personal safety of others).
Read also: Cow dung protects from nuclear radiation, says Gujarat court in illegal cattle transport case
‘Knew about dog aggression’
During the hearing, Hormusji tried to disown the dog saying that it was not his. However, the prosecution interrogated a veterinarian, who told the court that Hormusji often brought dogs to his clinic for examination.
The court then ruled that Hormusji, while opening the car door, did not exercise due care despite having “knowledge of the dog’s aggression”, which caused the dog to bite Irani.
“It is specifically stated by Kersi Irani (PW1) that the dog was trying to come out of the car. That is, while opening the door of the car, the accused knew that the dog was angry. Despite this, without taking due care, The door of the car was opened, due to which the said dog bit the informer.
(Editing by Anumeha Saxena)
Read also: ‘ISIS is like a bloodbath’: Arguments in UP court awarding death sentence to Gorakhpur attacker