Latest news with #UdayKumar
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Time of India
It is owner's duty to ensure pet causes no harm to others: Calcutta HC
Calcutta high court KOLKATA: It is a pet owner's duty to ensure that his/her pets do not harm others, Calcutta High Court has said in a recent order, turning down a man's plea to quash a criminal case slapped on him. 'The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, a pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm,' Justice Uday Kumar said in an order on May 23. The Sonarpur man was charged under IPC Section 289 after a resident of his apartment complex filed a police complaint saying he was attacked by 10-12 of the man's pet dogs, leading to injuries. The alleged attack occurred on the roof of the residential building in 2022. The pet owner moved HC seeking dismissal of the criminal charges, which he said were false. He claimed he had only one dog and a medical report of the complainant stated there was 'no obvious external injury'. Justice Kumar, however, held that whether the investigation was 'botched' was a matter to be tested during trial, when the accused could highlight these lapses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo He noted that even though the medical report did not show 'obvious external injury' as claimed by the defence, the complaint itself alleged an 'attack' by dogs, leading to a 'fall' and 'injury'. 'Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping 'many on the roof of a housing', which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury,' the judge observed. Section 289 IPC, Justice Uday Kumar said, imposed a 'duty on the owner or possessor of an animal' to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt from such an animal. He also observed that the exact nature and extent of the injury, and its correlation with the alleged dog attack, were disputed questions of fact. These discrepancies needed to be taken before the trial court, and the HC could assume 'the role of a fact-finding authority'. The judge said 289 IPC specifically uses 'knowingly or negligently omits', emphasizing either actual knowledge of the animal's harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management. While the police charge sheet said the 10-12 dogs belong to the accused, the pet owner disputed the fact highlighting the absence of documentary proof like municipal registration, veterinary records, purchase receipts and photographic evidence.
Time of India
27-05-2025
- Time of India
Calcutta HC: Pet owners must ensure animals don't harm others
Calcutta HC KOLKATA: Pet owners must ensure their animals do not harm others, Calcutta high court has said in a recent order, turning down a man's plea to quash a criminal case pertaining to a dog attack on a neighbour. "The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, a pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm," Justice Uday Kumar said in his order on May 23. The pet owner from Sonarpur, on Kolkata's outskirts, was charged under Section 289 of IPC, pertaining to "negligent conduct with respect to animals". This followed a complaint from the neighbour alleging he was attacked by 10-12 of the man's pet dogs on the terrace of their apartment building in 2022, leading to injuries. In his HC plea, the pet owner said the charges were based on "falsehood and inaccuracies". He claimed he had only one dog and that a medical report of the complainant mentioned there was "no obvious external injury". But Justice Kumar cited IPC Section 289 to say it imposed a "duty on the owner or possessor of an animal" to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt to others. The judge pointed out that the section specifically uses the words "knowingly or negligently omits", emphasising either actual knowledge of the animal's harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management. While the police chargesheet mentioned that "10-12 dogs" belonged to the accused, the pet owner disputed it, highlighting the absence of documentary and photographic evidence. Justice Kumar held that the accused could highlight these lapses during trial, adding the HC could not assume "the role of a fact-finding authority". "Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping 'many on the roof of a housing (complex)', which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury," the judge observed.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Time of India
‘Patriarchal, condescending': Calcutta high court raps trial court judge
1 2 Calcutta HC has in a recent order sharply criticised a trial court judge for his choice of words in matrimonial disputes, describing these as "patriarchal and condescending to women". It also rapped the judge for "copy-pasting" the order from his earlier judgments and warned if such instances were repeated, it would impact his service record. On May 22, HC granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty, overturning a 2018 order by the additional district judge, first court, at Sealdah. What irked HC was the trial court judge's order rejecting the husband's divorce plea and formulating "auspicious principles" for a successful marriage. HC: Just stopping short of making adverse comment The husband had filed a divorce plea in the trial court in 2015 alleging that his wife had not visited her matrimonial home since 2012, was refusing to cohabit and meet her marital obligations since 2014, and threatening to initiate criminal complaints against him. While the wife refuted the claims, the HC noted that no evidence was attached. While allowing the divorce suit, the HC noted that the wife had even skipped mediation as suggested by the HC in 2023. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The judge's four-point formula for a successful marriage included "transcendental efforts to keep a perfect relation based on austerity of the spouse for achieving purity of the relation", "paying honour to our traditional belief", "sincere interest in cultivating fidelity", and "unmotivated and uninterrupted urge to completely satisfy each other". The HC division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar said in its order: "The entire mindset of the learned trial judge appears to spring from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advise his wife properly, and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to 'bridge the gap' between the parties. Such observations have nothing to do with the law on the subject. " The high court judges said they were "just stopping short" of making any adverse comment against the trial judge because that could affect his career.
