Calcutta High Court Stresses Pet Owners’ Responsibility After Dog Attack Case

Kolkata: Pet owners in Kolkata have been reminded of their legal and moral obligations to prevent their animals from causing harm to others, following a recent Calcutta High Court order. The court dismissed a man's request to quash a criminal case related to a dog attack on his neighbour.

"The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, 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," Justice Uday Kumar stated in his May 23 ruling.

The case involves a resident of Sonarpur, located on the outskirts of Kolkata, who faced charges under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for "negligent conduct with respect to animals." The charges stemmed from a 2022 incident in which a neighbour alleged he was attacked by a group of 10-12 dogs owned by the accused on their apartment building's terrace, resulting in injuries.

In his appeal to the High Court, the pet owner argued that the allegations were "falsehood and inaccuracies". He asserted he owned only one dog and pointed out that the complainant's medical report showed "no obvious external injury". However, Justice Kumar referred to Section 289 of the IPC, which places a "duty on the owner or possessor of an animal" to take necessary precautions to prevent any likely danger to human life or serious injury.

The judge highlighted that the law specifically mentions "knowingly or negligently omits", underlining the importance of either being aware of an animal’s dangerous tendencies or failing to exercise proper care.

While the police chargesheet claimed the accused had "10-12 dogs," the pet owner contested this, noting the lack of documentary or photographic proof. Justice Kumar stated that these arguments could be raised during the trial, emphasizing that the High Court is not a "fact-finding authority".

"Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping 'many dogs...unchained on the roof of a housing (complex)', which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury," the judge observed.

This case serves as a significant reminder for pet owners to exercise vigilance and responsibility, ensuring their animals do not pose a risk to others in the community.