Pet Owners Duty-Bound To Prevent Pet From Causing Harm: Calcutta High Court
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, the Calcutta High Court has said.
Referring to Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with negligent conduct with respect to animal, the high court said, “This section unequivocally imposes 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 animal”.
Justice Uday Kumar's bench further observed that the provision 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.
This observation was made by the High Court while dealing with a case of quashing of a complaint wherein the complainant was allegedly attacked by 1- to 12 pet dogs while he was on the roof of his residential building.
The complainant one Dipan Banerjee in the FIR submitted that the alleged attack caused him to lose balance, fall, and sustain injuries. He specifically averred that these pet dogs were not properly chained and roamed freely, thereby creating a perilous environment and posing a significant threat to human life.
Noting that the complaint highlighted 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 high court refused to quashing the complaint.
“Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution based on contentious factual claims. The Trial Court is the appropriate forum to delve into the nuances of the evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine the allegations' veracity”, it said.
Referring to the allegation, high court also said that the case did not fall into categories where allegations were so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reasonably conclude there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
Case Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.