The Calcutta High Court ruled that pet owners must take proper care to prevent their pets from harming others. Referring to IPC Section 289, the Court emphasized strict legal responsibility.
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court clearly stated that a pet owner has a strong legal duty to take care of their pet and ensure it does not harm others.
The court made this observation while referring to Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which talks about careless or negligent handling of animals.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court: “Will You Name Your Pet After Hindu God or Muslim Prophet?”
The 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.”
The case came up before Justice Uday Kumar’s bench, which was hearing a plea to cancel a complaint filed by a man named Dipan Banerjee. In his FIR, Mr. Banerjee claimed that he was attacked by 1 to 12 pet dogs while he was on the roof of his residential building.
He alleged that because of the attack, he lost his balance, fell, and got injured. He also pointed out that these pet dogs were not properly chained and were moving around freely on the rooftop.
This, according to him, created a dangerous situation and posed a serious risk to people’s lives.
The High Court took this issue seriously and agreed that the matter raised an important public concern.
It noted that the complaint talked about
“many dogs…unchained on the roof of a housing,”
and said that if this claim is true, then it could really be a
“threat to human life,”
even if there is no immediate serious injury.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that Section 289 IPC uses the words “knowingly or negligently omits,” which means that even if a pet owner doesn’t know for sure that their animal could be dangerous, they can still be held responsible if they fail to take proper care.
The court pointed out that this law focuses both on actual knowledge of the animal’s dangerous nature and the failure to manage the animal properly.
The High Court refused to cancel the complaint and said that it was too early to stop the legal case. It made it clear that the trial court should be the one to look into the evidence, hear witnesses, and decide if the claims are true.
The court said,
“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.”
Lastly, the court noted that this case does not fit into the category where the claims are so strange or unbelievable that no reasonable person would think there are enough reasons to continue the case.
ALSO READ: Chennai Court: “Fines, Restrictions On Pet Owners In Apartments Illegal”
The High Court emphasized 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.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Pet Owners
