The Dongri police had booked Mohammed Ayub on the complaint of a woman who had alleged that she had sustained injuries because of the goat on February 21, 2018. (Representational)A magistrate court recently acquitted a 51-year-old man after it could not be proven that a goat, which had caused grievous injury to a woman, belonged to him.
Besides Section 338 (causing grievous hurt), the man was booked under Section 289 (negligent conduct with respect to animal) of the Indian Penal Code, which is not often used.
Section 289, which calls for punishment for a maximum of six months, has provisions to punish a person, who knowingly or negligently, omits to take such order with any animal in his possession that is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or danger of grievous hurt.
The Dongri police had booked Mohammed Ayub on the complaint of a woman who had alleged that she had sustained injuries because of the goat on February 21, 2018.
The woman told the court that the incident took place when she was getting down the stairs from her first floor home. She claimed that a goat was sitting on the last step.
When she was on the last step, the goat pushed her, resulting in her fall. All her belongings also scattered, she had alleged, adding that she was rushed to the hospital by her daughter.
The woman further told the court that as her husband was out of Mumbai, she approached the police after his return, following which an FIR was registered. She alleged that as the goat belonged to Ayub, he was responsible for her injuries.
While hearing the case, the court said, “The first and foremost requirement in this case should be to categorically prove that the disputed buck (goat) belongs to the accused. But except oral evidence of informant and his wife, there is no material on record to prove the same.”
Ayub, meanwhile, raised issue of delay in lodging the FIR and claimed that there is nothing to prove that he was the owner of the goat.
The court said, “During cross-examination, accused raised defence that he is no way in concerned with the said buck. However, prosecution could not bring relevant witness in proving the same. It is not categorically proved that the buck belongs to accused. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, accused is liable for the act of disputed buck. No negligent act is proved on the part of accused.”
The court added that there are no independent witnesses other than the injured woman.
“In this case, except the injured, no one has been examined to corroborate her testimony. The incident has taken place in the building where a number of persons could have been available for recording statement but the investigating officer has not recorded the statement of such witnesses. Under such circumstances, it will not be safe to rely upon the single testimony of injured,” it said.