A Delhi court has delivered a significant verdict, convicting a woman for attempted culpable homicide after her pet dog attacked a former employee in a disturbing incident linked to a salary dispute. The case, which unfolded in Malviya Nagar, highlights the severe consequences of deliberate provocation and negligence.
Court Ruling on the Malviya Nagar Dog Attack Case
Last Saturday, Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal of Saket Court convicted Rajani Singh, a resident of Malviya Nagar, for attempting to commit culpable homicide. The conviction stems from an incident in 2020 where Rajani allegedly provoked her pet dog to attack Sapna, her former employee, after Sapna visited Rajani's residence to request payment of outstanding salary.
Details of the Attack and Injuries Sustained
According to the Delhi Police, the attack resulted in Sapna suffering severe facial injuries, including the dislodgement of two teeth and disfigurement. The police filed an FIR in July 2020, alleging that the issue pertained to unpaid salary portions. During the visit in June 2020, Rajani reportedly made an indecent and unlawful demand before instigating the dog to attack.
Judge's Observations on the Intentional Nature of the Act
In his order, Judge Vishal emphasized that the incident was not a random act. He noted that Rajani voluntarily left the dog in close proximity to Sapna, who was unfamiliar with the animal, while four to five other persons present in the house remained unharmed. "This fact does indicate, to some extent, that the incident was not a random or wholly uncontrolled act of the animal," the judge stated, highlighting the deliberate disregard of imminent danger.
Evidence and Corroboration in the Case
The prosecution built the case primarily on Sapna's testimony and medical evidence. Judge Vishal affirmed the credibility of eyewitness testimony, stating that a conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a victim if it inspires full confidence. The medical evidence, including opinions from the AIIMS Medical Board, conclusively established the nature and severity of the injuries, corroborating Sapna's account.
Broader Implications and Legal Context
This case underscores the legal accountability of pet owners in incidents of provocation and negligence. It also sheds light on workplace disputes escalating into violent confrontations, with the court's ruling serving as a precedent for similar cases involving animal attacks instigated by human intent.
