Man accused of hurting dog by rashly driven car let off

A man, accused of hitting a dog by his car and seriously injuring it, has been let off by a city court, which dubbed the pet owner's complaint as "false and frivolous".

Additional Sessions Judge Neera Bharihoke set aside the order of a magisterial court which had framed the charge of negligent driving under the IPC against him, saying there was no proof of the incident as neither the CCTV recording revealed any such footage, nor was there any medical report of the dog's injuries.

The complainant, a resident of south east Delhi here, had alleged that on July 21, 2016 his pet had suffered internal injuries and to his leg after the car of the accused hit the dog hard and threw it off its feet due to rash driving by the accused. He had claimed that the CCTVs installed in his residential colony had recorded the entire incident.

 

"Theentirefactsashavebeenallegedinthecomplaintare primafacie falseand frivolousastheCCTVcamerainstalledon thegateofthecolony, that is attheallegedplace ofincidenteven whenitsrecordingwascheckedinthe presenceofthewitness, the CCTV footage does not reveal any picture regarding the allegedincident," the judge said.

The court also observed that the contents of the complaint and the complainant's statement recorded before the police were contradictory. "Ratherfacts ofthecase demonstratethatnosuchallegedincidentas alleged intheFIReverhappened," it said.

A magisterial court had on September 6, 2016 framed the charge against Deep Singh, for the offence under section 279 (rash driving) under the IPC.

However, the sessions court allowed the appeal of the accused and noted that there wasnomedical reportorany proof of treatmentof thepeteitherin privateorgovernment hospital.

"Duringinvestigation,thecomplainantstatedthathe didnot haveanytreatment papers, governmentorprivateorMLC (medical report) inrelation tothealleged incident," it said.

In his appeal, Singh had claimed thattheevidence, oraland documentary, relied upon bytheprosecutiondid not show his involvementin thealleged offence.

The sessions court, while allowing his appeal, said, "Thus, in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated September 6, 2016 passedbythe trial court issetasideandthe proceedingsagainsttherevisionistbeforelearnedtrialcourt are dropped.