A court here has sentenced a businessman to three months’ simple imprisonment, 12 years after his pet Rottweiler dog bit a man, observing if reasonable care is not taken while going out with such an aggressive canine, then it is “certainly harmful for the public”.
In such types of cases where there is a question of public safety, “leniency is unwarranted”, Metropolitan magistrate, Girgaon court, N A Patel, said in the order passed on January 3.
The court found the dog owner, Cyrus Percy Hormusji (44), guilty of offences under Indian Penal Code Sections 289 (negligent conduct with respect to animal) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others).
The detailed order was available on Sunday.
The incident took place in May 2010 when the the victim, Kersi Irani, and Hormusji were arguing over a property dispute while standing near the latter’s car at Nepean Sea Road in Mumbai.
Hormusji’s pet dog was inside the car and trying to get out of the vehicle.
In spite of the request to not open the car door, the accused (Hormusji) opened it due to which the dog came out and directly attacked the informant (Irani), the prosecution said.
The canine bit Irani twice on his right leg and once on his right hand, it added.
The court in its order held the accused was aware this dog is of a “very aggressive breed”.
“Therefore, reasonable care was expected from him. The age of the informant is 72 years, at such an old age the strong and aggressive dog attacked him and took three bites,” the court said.
“When the person like the accused, who is a grown up man, was going in the public place with such an aggressive dog, if reasonable care is not taken then certainly it is harmful for the public,” the magistrate observed.
Rottweiler dogs are famous “for being powerful and having forceful bite,” the court noted.
They are capable of generating a bite of up to 328 PSI (pound per square inch). They are one of the strongest breeds of dogs, it added.
The accused was the owner of the said dog. Therefore, he was certainly having knowledge about the aggression of said dog, the court said.
“In spite of that he has not taken sufficient care or order therewith to guard against public danger to human life. Therefore, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 289 of the IPC,” it said.
The act of the accused was not intentional but negligent and therefore, he has committed the offence punishable under IPC section 337, it further said.
The court sentenced the accused to three months’ simple imprisonment, saying in such types of cases where there is a question of public safety, “leniency is unwarranted”.
