A magistrate court in Nagpur has sentenced a practicing doctor to six months in jail as her dog bit a child seven years ago. The doctor had claimed that she did not own the dog but prosecution showed through witnesses that she was the owner of the dog.
According to the prosecution, a case was registered on September 30, 2014 when a woman alleged that her 9-year-old son was bitten by a dog. The incident happened at 8.45 am when he had gone with his friend to feed the dogs. The boy was rushed to a hospital in Sakkaradara for treatment. The mother then lodged a complaint with the Nandanvan Police Station.
The police officers found out that incident had happened due to the negligence of the owner of the accused dog owner. Hence, a chargesheet was filed and about eight witnesses were examined and different documentary evidence was perused.
In the court the government pleader A Raut argued that the case of prosecution has been well established and hence, the accused should be convicted for the offense charged against her.
On the other hand, the doctor’s lawyer Tushar Pinjarkar argued that the case of the prosecution has not been established against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and allegations are vague and omnibus in nature.
“Ownership of dog is not proved by the prosecution. Evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt be given to the accused,” argued Pinjarkar.
However, Magistrate JD Jadhao ruled out the claim of the accused doctor that the dog was a stray as two witnesses who worked as dog catchers with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation had said that they had caught the dog after the incident from the residence of the accused doctor and that she herself had signed the documents.
The court convicted the doctor under section 289 (negligent conduct with respect to animals) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. On the point of sentence, while the doctor sought relief and pleaded for only a fine to be imposed, the prosecution sought maximum punishment.
They said, “Due to the negligent act of the accused the victims life is in danger till date because of the infection of dog’s bite and it may increase at any time within the span of seven years.”
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ordered the doctor to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
Source: India Today