Owner of aggressive dogs must take reasonable care when out with them in public place: Mumbai Court convicts man whose Rottweiler bit 72-year-old

When persons who own dogs belonging to any aggressive breed take such dogs to public spaces, they are expected to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of other persons, a Mumbai court recently held. [State v. Cyrus Hormusji].The Court made the observation while convicting a Mumbai resident after his pet Rottweiler dog bit a 72-year old man..Metropolitan Magistrate Nadeem Patel at Girgaon, Mumbai, convicted Cyrus Hormusji, the dog owner, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of three months and also imposed a fine of ₹1,000. .The Magistrate found that the owner of the dog was aware that his pet dog was an aggressive breed and that taking such a dog to a public place would be harmful to the public. Despite this, the dog owner had not taken sufficient care to guard against public danger to human life, the Court noted.."The Rottweiler dog is also famous for powerful and having forceful bite ... The accused is the owner of the said dog. Therefore, he was certainly having knowledge about the aggression of the said dog ... without taking reasonable care he has open[ed] the door of the car due to which the said dog bite the informant. When such type of aggressive dog was taken to the public place it is the duty of the owner of the dog to take reasonable care for the safety of others. The accused while opening the door not taken reasonable care due to which the dog bite the informant and caused simple hurt to him," the Court said in its order..The judge also opined that there was no need to be lenient when it came to sentencing the dog owner. .“The age of the informant (victim) is 72 years at such old age the strong and aggressive dog attacked him and took three bites. When the person like accused who is grown up man was going in the public place with such aggressive dog, if reasonable care not taken then certainly it is harmful for the public. Therefore, in such type of cases where there is question of public safety leniency is unwarranted,” the Court said..The incident took place in May 2010. The dog owner, Hormusji, and his relative (victim) were having an altercation when two dogs owned by Hormusji - a labrador and a rottweiler, as per witnesses - kept inside his car started barking. According to the prosecution, Hormusji opened the car door, even as the dogs were barking, leading to one of the dogs biting the victim's hand and calf. The Court was told that Hormusji had opened the car door, despite requests by the victim not to open the door, after which the dog attacked the victim. The accused, in his defence, contended that neither the car nor the dog were his. The Court, however, was not convinced with these claims and observed,"Even if car belongs to someone else, it will not make any defence ... If the dog [did] not belong to accused, there was no occasion for him to [take] the dog to the doctor. But he has taken the dog to the doctor, it shows that said dog is owned by accused.".The trial court examined five witnesses before finding that the prosecution had proved the charges against the dog owner under Sections 289 (negligent conduct with respect to animal) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of other) of the Indian Penal Code..Additional public prosecutor BU Gavali appeared for the State. Advocate Madan Gupta appeared for Hormusji..[Read order]