Negligent Conduct With Respect to Animals & Probable Danger It May Cause Is Sufficient To Attract Offence U/S. 289 IPC: Calcutta High Court
|The revisional application, filed before the Calcutta High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 289 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
While refusing to quash a case against two dog owners, the Calcutta High Court has held that the core of the offence under Section 289 IPC is "negligent conduct with respect to animal" and the "probable danger" it may cause, not necessarily the actual manifestation of a grievous injury at the initial stage.
The revisional application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 289 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), currently pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The Single Bench of Justice Uday Kumar observed, “The alleged attack, if proven, coupled with the assertion of unchained dogs posing a threat, could still establish a prima facie case under Section 289 IPC, even if the resultant injury was minor or not immediately apparent. The core of the offence under Section 289 IPC is "negligent conduct with respect to animal" and the "probable danger" it may cause, not necessarily the actual manifestation of a grievous injury at the initial stage.”
Advocate Ranojoy Chatterjee represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Rudradipta Nandy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A written complaint was made to the Inspector-in-Charge by the opposite party and this complaint subsequently became a formal First Information Report (FIR). It was alleged that on June 26, 2022, while the complainant was on the roof of his residential building, he was suddenly attacked by 10 to 12 pet dogs. This 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. Consequently, he lodged the FIR against the dogs' named owners: the petitioner & his sister, both residents of the same housing complex.
The Investigating Officer (IO) conducted an investigation, which culminated in the filing of the aforementioned charge-sheet under Sections 289 & 34 IPC against the petitioner and his sister. The petitioner surrendered before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was subsequently released on bail.
Reasoning
Referring to section Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, which talks about the negligent conduct with respect to animals, the Bench explained that the essential ingredients of this offence are knowingly or negligently omitting to take sufficient order with an animal, and such omission is sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life or grievous hurt.
The complainant alleged a "sudden attack" by "10-12 pet dogs" roaming "without chain," leading to injury. This prima facie pointed towards a negligent omission by the owners to control their animals, creating potential danger. Furthermore, the charge sheet invoked Section 34, implying a common intention between the petitioner and his sister, which would require evidence demonstrating their joint responsibility for the dogs and their collective failure to control them.
“Furthermore, Section 289 IPC references 'probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt,' implying that the potential for harm from an owner's negligence is a relevant factor, not solely the actual infliction of grievous hurt. The exact nature and extent of the injury, and its correlation with the alleged dog attack, are disputed questions of fact demanding a thorough examination of evidence during trial. This Court, at the quashing stage, cannot assume the role of a fact-finding authority”, it said.
“Allegations of a 'concocted case', "oblique motive", an "eyewash investigation," or an "abuse of process" are a serious accusation requires strong evidence. Merely making such an allegation is insufficient. The court would look for tangible evidence of such malice within the prosecution's own material. The fact that the complainant is "himself in this force" (as alleged by the petitioner) could be a factor to consider for bias, but not a conclusive ground for quashing unless clear abuse of power is demonstrated. For this Court to quash a proceeding on such grounds, it must be satisfied that the allegations are so inherently improbable, absurd, or maliciously motivated that no conviction could possibly be sustained.”, it observed.
The Bench further noted that the petitioner's entire argument aimed to pre-empt the Trial Court's assessment of evidence and credibility. As per the Bench, this case exemplified where disputed questions of fact necessitate a full-fledged trial. The charge-sheet had been filed, implying that the Investigating Agency found sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner. The Bench further found that the case involves several disputed questions of fact that can only be effectively resolved by the Trial Court after recording evidence from both sides. “The allegations, as they stand, coupled with the investigation that led to the charge-sheet, do disclose a prima facie case for the alleged offences, thereby necessitating a full-fledged trial for proper adjudication”, it mentioned.
Thus, dismissing the revision petition, the Bench directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Cause Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. (Case No.: CRR 4428 of 2022)
Appearance
Petitioners: Advocates Ranojoy Chatterjee, Tamal Singha Roy
Respondent: Advocates Rudradipta Nandy, Sonal