A Delhi court has convicted a woman for attempting culpable homicide and negligent conduct with respect to an animal after her pet dog attacked a former employee, causing grievous and life-threatening injuries to the victim's face and neck.
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal held Rajni Singh guilty under Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 289 IPC(negligent conduct with respect to animals), while acquitting her of the charge under Section 509 IPC (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman).
"The core incident, namely the dog bite causing grievous and life-threatening injuries to the complainant, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt through the unimpeached testimony of the injured and the strong corroboration provided by medical evidence," the court said in its judgment dated January 24.
On June 11, 2020, the complainant, Sapna, who had worked for the accused, visited Singh's residence in Malviya Nagar to collect her pending salary.
The prosecution alleged that after Sapna refused an alleged indecent demand, Singh intentionally unleashed her pet dog in the room, resulting in a brutal attack that left the victim's face permanently disfigured and caused the loss of two teeth. The victim also had to undergo vaccination, and upon request, Singh refused to assist her financially with the medical costs.
Accepting the prosecution's version, the court noted that the victim's testimony was "clear, cogent and consistent" and was corroborated by unimpeachable medical evidence.
"The complainant is an injured witness, and the law accords a higher degree of credibility to the testimony of an injured witness, as her presence at the spot is natural and her injuries provide an in-built guarantee of truthfulness," the court said.
The court emphasised that the testimony of a sole witness does not become unreliable just because other witnesses turned hostile or do not support the prosecution's version.
"The court is required to separate the grain from the chaff and assess whether the evidence of the injured witness inspires confidence and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence," added the court.
The medical board found eight injuries on the victim, including fractures to teeth and a lacerated wound on the neck, which was described as a vital area containing sensitive structures where injury could prove fatal. The board opined that the injuries collectively were grievous and dangerous and consistent with a dog attack.
"The accused can safely be imputed with the knowledge that her act was so imminently dangerous that it was likely to cause such bodily injury as could result in death. The fact that the victim survived due to timely medical intervention does not dilute the gravity of the act. The subsequent conduct of the accused in taking the injured to the hospital, though relevant for mitigation at the stage of sentence, does not negate the existence of the requisite knowledge at the time of the incident," said the court while convicting Singh under Section 308 IPC.
Rejecting the defence's claim that the incident was accidental, the court said, "When a person keeps a dog within a confined residential space and knowingly leaves an unfamiliar person alone with the animal, while others remain safe, it suggests a conscious act or, at the very least, a deliberate disregard of an obvious and imminent danger." However, the court acquitted Singh of the charge under Section 509 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of insulting the modesty of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt.
"Except for a bald assertion made by the complainant, there is no specific, detailed or consistent clear evidence to substantiate this allegation," the court said.
The court will hear arguments on the sentence separately on January 31.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
