After his Rottweiler dog attacked and bit a 72-year-old relative three times thirteen years ago, a businessman was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison for negligence under Section 289 of the IPC by a Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Mumbai. 

Metropolitan Magistrate Nadeem Patel noted that as Cyrus Hormusji was the dog's owner, he was well aware of the animal's aggressive tendencies. Despite this, he opened the car door and let the enraged dog out.

“When such type of aggressive dog was taken to the public place it is the duty of the owner of the dog to take reasonable care for the safety of others,” the court remarked.

Further refusing leniency the bench said “where there is a question of public safety leniency is unwarranted.” “The age of the informant is 72 years at such old age the strong and aggressive dog attacked him and took three bites. When the person like accused who is grown up man was going in the public place with such aggressive dog, if reasonable care not taken then certainly it is harmful for the public.”

According to the prosecution, the defendant went to meet the complainant Kersi Irani in his building block at Nepean Sea Road regarding a property issue with his wife and two dogs. The dogs inside the car began to bark as their conversation grew louder. The large black dog was set unleashed on the prisoner despite being warned not to open the car door. Irani's right leg's calf was the dog's first point of contact. The dog bit his calf and upper arm again after he fell, this time above the elbow.

Rottweilers are famous for their powerful and forceful bite and are the strongest breeds of dogs, the court noted. “It is specifically deposed by Kersi Irani (PW1) that the dog was trying to come out of car it means that at the time of opening the door of the car the accused knows that the dog was angry. Inspite of that without taking reasonable care he has open the door of the car due to which the said dog bite the informant.”

In light of the victim's and his son's eyewitness testimony, the court rejected the notion that the accused was not present simply because an independent witness wasn't questioned. “Generally in the police matters people not coming forward to get their statement recorded as a witness. Therefore, people are reluctant to go to the police station even though they are witnessed to the incident. Therefore, in these circumstances it is very difficult to find the eyewitness.”