A 40-year-old man was sent to prison for four months because his pet dog, a Husky, bit his neighbour while they shared the building lift. The man was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) on charges of voluntarily causing hurt and negligent conduct with an animal. The judicial first-class magistrate Suhas P Bhosale stated that he would not give too much leniency to the accused, Rishab Patel. He said, “According to CCTV footage, the offender dragged his pet into the lift, demonstrating his lack of empathy for his own animal companion. He dragged his own pet into the lift out of disregard for the informant, and the conduct caused injuries.”
The victim, Ramik Shah, stays in the Alfa Apartment in Worli. He left his house with his one-and-a-half-year-old son and domestic help. When the lift stopped at the third floor, Shah requested Patel to wait as his son is afraid of dogs. But Patel ignored the request and entered the lift. He dragged his dog inside the lift, and the dog ended up biting Shah on his left forearm. After this incident, Shah, his son, and the domestic help exited the lift. The accused followed them and said to Shah that he could do whatever he wanted to do. Shah underwent treatment and filed a complaint with the Worli police.
Also Read: Mumbai: Two Women Sustained Injuries After a Slab of 5-Storey Building Collapsed
In the court hearing, the prosecution presented oral evidence from Shah and his domestic help, Anuj Singh. Anuj Singh testified that Patel forcefully brought his dog into the lift despite Shah’s request not to enter. A medical officer also confirmed to the court that Shah’s left wrist had bite marks. The CCTV footage was evidence in this case. It confirmed what happened before and right after the bite, but it did not depict what happened in the lift. The defence cited contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, such as the time lag between the incident and medical intervention and the victim's initial non-administration of the anti-rabies vaccine. They also questioned CCTV footage collection.
The magistrate did, however, find Shah and Singh's claims to be steadfast and consistent. "Only because the witness is the servant of the first informant, we cannot brush aside his evidence if it is otherwise trustworthy," the magistrate ruled, refuting the notion that Singh was an interested witness since he worked for Shah. The accused knew or had reason to suspect that his activities could cause harm, thus, the court determined that they were "voluntarily" performed.
What is Rigorous Imprisonment (RI)?RI falls under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It describes the nature of the punishments given to the convicts. It involves prisoners doing hard labour while they are serving their sentence in Jail. The prisoner may be assigned physically demanding tasks, such as working in a workshop, breaking stones, cleaning, or other forms of manual labor. It is considered more severe than simple imprisonment, where no hard labor is involved.