Selfie gone wild: Indian attacked by tiger while posing for photo
A man was brutally attacked by the tiger (Video credits: X/Sidharth Shukla)
An Indian man was brutally attacked by a tiger at an Animal Park in Thailand. The shocking incident was recorded and shared across multiple platforms in social media.
The video has gathered widespread reactions from several social media users and have reignited the debate of animal cruelty and wildlife ethics.
In the video, a man is seen walking beside a tiger. He suddenly stopped and attempted to take a selfie with the animal. However, the tiger became aggressive and attacked him. Another person, who appeared to be an animal caregiver, quickly stepped in and tried to control the tiger. The man suffered minor injuries in the incident.
The video was shared on X by an user Sidharth Shukla on May 29. In the caption, the user wrote, " This is one of those paces where they keep tigers like pets and people can take selfies, feed them etc."
Within hours of being posted, the video got more than 2 million views drawing shocking reaction and massive criticism from users.
Reacting to the incident, a netizen commented, " My immediate reaction to this video was a chilling realization: that could have been me! This chilling video exposes a dangerous trend: many Indian tourists are lured into risky photo-ops with tigers in Thailand, often due to relentless peer pressure."
One of the user claimed that this incident occurred in Tiger Kingdom, Phuket. She added that at the ticket counter the authorities make the visitors sign an undertaking of waiver of their responsibility in case of any animal attack.
Another user said that tigers don't like getting touched at their lower back and the man was continuously petting the tiger at lower back. This must have frustrated the tiger.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Crime AI an end-to-end investigation tool
"Currently, the NCRP complaint system relies on manual complaint submission through self-registration on the portal or through the 1930 helpline. It lacks intelligent classification, real-time tracking and streamlined investigation capabilities for complex fraud cases," said the startup's founder, Meet Bisht, a BTech in cybersecurity from Parul University and a cyber expert who worked closely with Gujarat Police. "Manual data entry is prone to human error. Often, minute details are missing from complaints as cyberfraud victims are often unaware of what is needed like the crime category or subcategory or transaction IDs," Bisht said. "As this process is time-consuming, by the time a complaint is lodged, the stolen funds have been layered through multiple accounts and recovery either becomes difficult or is only partial. There is also workload duplication for LEAs as the same fraudsters/accounts appear in multiple cases with no linkage," Bisht added. Crime AI was proposed as a solution at the IndiaAI I4C Cyber Guard AI Hackathon — the national competition organized by the India AI Mission in collaboration with the I4C. "Crime AI is a smart, end-to-end cybercrime investigation portal with AI classification, optical character recognition (OCR), voice processing and LEA workflow management features," said Bisht, whose team of young innovators, Rohit Ganaka and Yukta Chauhan, bagged Rs 3 lakh in funding after winning the third prize at the hackathon. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Health Plans for 2025 – Start Here Search7 Learn More Undo The AI classification in Crime AI auto-detects complaint category and subcategory using natural language processing. "The OCR-powered document analysis feature extracts text from screenshots, PDFs and images uploaded by complainants and auto-fills in the fields of the form from the evidence files," he said. Through audio transcription, voice complaints are converted into structured text. This feature detects and extracts entities like names, amounts, banks and fraud types, among others," said Bisht, adding that currently, the AI model supports more than 15 Indian languages. "With this model, law enforcement agencies, including those at district, state or national level, can even ask banks or payment gateways to freeze funds or put liens on accounts if there is a complaint of fraud," said Bisht.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kidnapped in Iran on way to Australia, three Punjab men rescued: Embassy
Three men from Punjab, who had left for Australia on the promise of jobs by travel agents but found themselves in Iran and were later 'kidnapped' there, have been rescued, the Embassy of India in Iran Wednesday said. 'The three kidnapped Indian citizens have been safely rescued & are now under the care of the Embassy of India, which is facilitating their early repatriation. We sincerely thank the Government of Iran for their swift and effective efforts in securing their release. Your support reflects the true spirit of friendship between our two nations,' the Embassy of India in Iran posted on X. Amritpal Singh (23) from Bhagowal village in Hoshiarpur, Husanpreet Singh (27) of Dhuri in Sangrur and Jaspal Singh (32) of Langroya in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar — all in Punjab — were 'freed in a police operation against the hostage takers in Varamin in south Tehran,' Iran's Tasnim news agency reported Tuesday. All three had left for Australia in April with work visas after being promised lucrative jobs there by the travel agents back home in Punjab. They ended up in Iran where they were allegedly kidnapped by a network of travel agents from Pakistan who then demanded a ransom of Rs 18 lakh each for their release. The respective families received phone calls from the three men Tuesday evening, soon after the Iranian embassy in New Delhi, citing local media in Iran, said that the 'missing Indian citizens have been freed by Tehran police'. Husanpreet's cousin Manpreet Singh told the Indian Express that he received a call from an Iranian number at around 6 pm Tuesday. 'It was Husanpreet. He only said, 'We are safe now. Indian authorities have rescued us and we are now being taken to the embassy'. Before I could ask anything, the line went dead. Now, at least we know that he is alive,' said Manpreet.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Group insolvency framework: When one is not for all
The principle of separateness is no minor technicality. It lies at the heart of company law. The landmark 1896 ruling by the British House of Lords, in Salomon vs Salomon & Co, established that once incorporated, a company acquires its own legal identity, distinct from its shareholders, directors, or affiliates. This was more than a formalism; it unleashed the modern economy, shielding personal assets from business risks and allowing capital to move freely. India's Supreme Court has affirmed this on many instances, underscoring that corporate separateness is not a legal fiction to be set aside for convenience, but a deliberate construct governing credit, liability, and risk. The IBC reflects this. It treats companies as distinct legal persons, with debts, defaults, and proceedings that are all individually determined. Section 3(7) defines a 'corporate person' in individual terms—one corporation at a time. Section 5(8), which defines 'financial debt,' presupposes a direct relationship between debtor and creditor, not a complex web of inter-corporate obligations. And from Section 6 onwards, the entire resolution mechanism is built around initiating proceedings against 'a corporate debtor'—not a group, conglomerate, or an economic cluster. Of course, the notion that each company is a sealed legal island has its exceptions. Courts in India and abroad have occasionally 'pierced' the corporate veil—especially when the structure is used to commit fraud or evade the law. As early as 1933, Lord Denning remarked that courts could 'pull aside the corporate veil' to see the true actors behind it (Gilford Motor Co vs Horne). Indian courts have likewise reaffirmed that corporate identity is not a shield for misconduct. But these are the exceptions to the rule, triggered by fact-specific abuse, not tools for convenience or policy innovation. The call for a group insolvency framework stems from real-world frictions, not just theory. Consider the Srei Group, where both the parent and its subsidiary were forced into parallel insolvency proceedings, despite shared cash flows, cross-guarantees, and overlapping liabilities. This created a procedural quagmire: creditors filed claims in both forums, there was confusion over ownership of assets, and value was steadily lost. The Videocon case posed an even starker dilemma. Thirteen companies, all functionally run as one business, were admitted into distinct CIRPs—only to be later resolved collectively by judicial innovation, not legislative design.
