Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is further stated that, thereafter, injured reached at police station and handed over a complaint wherein she stated that she is residing at House no. 90 Jagriti enclave, Delhi, along with her family and one Pankaj Madan is residing at house no. 20, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi-92. It is further stated that Pankaj Madan is owner of a huge pet dog and that some time, servant of Pankaj Madan used to bring the said dog in the service lane and she & her husband have informed Pankaj Madan several times to ask their servant to not to bring the said dog at service lane behind their house. It is further stated that said dog was left free for roaming around in service lane and the said dog is very aggressive and ferocious. It is further stated that she has several times complained to Pankaj Madan to kept the said dog FIR NO. 199/2014 PS : Anand Vihar State Vs. Hari Shankar Page no. 2 of 29 in behavior. It is further stated that on 30.03.2014 at about 12.15 pm, while the complainant was standing on back side service lane road, the servant of Pankaj Madan came there along with the dog roaming freely in the lane when suddenly the said dog attacked the complainant and bite her left hand tearing away her fingers. It is further stated that her finger bower got broken and her nail came out and part of her finger was cut away. She further stated that she called PCR van who took her to Hedgewar Hospital for treatment and after initial treatment, she went to Fortis Hospital, Noida, for further treatment. It is further stated that the dog owner Pankaj Madan was negligent and careless and that a legal action be taken against him.

In the law discussed above, it is categorically observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that it would not be correct approach to acquit the accused on the basis of faulty investigation and court has to evaluate the evidence on record.

17. In light of the law discussed above, coming to the present case in hand, both the injured Smt. Anju Gupta and her husband namely Alok Kumar Gupta have deposed that accused Hari Shankar was roaming the said dog of Pankaj Madan on the said day without reasonable precautions and the said dog attacked the complainant Anju Gupta thereby crushing her fingers, resulting into grievous injuries upon her person. Both the said witnesses also correctly identified accused Hari Shankar in the Court.

In the present case in hand, the contradiction / improvement so pointed out in the testimonies of the complainant and her husband cannot be considered to be material contradiction which goes to the core of the case of the prosecution. All the said contradictions so pointed out are merely minor contradictions. Further, it is settled law that the statement of the complainant or any witness cannot be read in isolation and has to be read as whole. The complete reading of testimony of the complainant and that of her husband goes to show that accused Hari Shankar were roaming the dog of Pankaj Madan when the said dog attacked the complainant resulting into grievous injury upon her person. The accused was correctly identified by both the witnesses in the Court and further the injury upon the person of the complainant was proved by the deposition of doctors. As such, the contradiction, if any, in the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be considererd as material enough so as to effect the case of the prosecution.

34. Since it is duly proved by the prosecution that accused Hari Shankar was roaming dog when the same attacked the complainant, the question which is required to be dealt with whether accused Hari Shankar was negligent in his conduct so as to take sufficient guard against any probable danger to human life. In this regard, it is pertinent to state in here FIR NO. 199/2014 PS : Anand Vihar State Vs. Hari Shankar Page no. 27 of 29 that both the complainant as well as her husband have consistently stated that the said dog was aggressive and ferocious and that they have already requested Pankaj Madan and his servant to take due care and not to bring the said dog behind their house. The complainant in her testimony before the Court have stated that on the said date accused Hari Shankar was loosely holding the chain of the said dog when he attacked her. It is further stated that accused Hari Shankar instead of removing the dog started laughing at her. It is further stated by the complainant that accused never used to put any mouth guard on the said dog. It is pertinent to note in here that there is no evidence that it was the complainant who provoked the said dog in any manner or that any of the act or conduct of the complainant result into the dog attacking her. In absence of any such evidence, it can be held that it was because of the negligence of the accused to take proper care in handling of the said dog that the said dog attacked the complainant thereby causing grievous injury upon her.