( 202 )
Present ; Schneider J.
INSPECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OFCRUELTY TO ANIMALS, NAWALAPITIYA,v. PUNCHIRALA et al.
P. C. Oampola, 4,579.
Cruelly to animal*—Killing mild elk in a cruel manner—" Animal ”—
Whore a number oi people chased a wild elk which had not beenpreviously captured, and killed it in a cruel manner—
Held, that they were not punishable under the Cruelty toAnimals Ordinance, 1907, as the wild "elk – was not an “ animal **within-the meaning of the term in the Ordinance.
fjl HE facts appeal* from the judgment.
‘Navaratnam, in support.—The term “animaTis defined in section8 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1907 as any domestic civ captured animal.The evidence shows that the elk in question was a wild animal.The 6oziviction under section 0 is therefore bad.
June 7, 1922. Schneider J.—
The fifth and eighth accused, who have been convicted andfined Rs. 20, bring up these proceedings by way of revision. Theapplication for revision was made on the ground that the facts didnot justify the conviction, but counsel who appeared in supportof that application has urged that the conviction is bud inasmuchas the animal, in respect of the treatment of which the convictionis founded, does not come within the. definition of animal in theOrdinance. The Ordinance defines an unimal ns meaning any* ‘domestic or captured unimal.” Admittedly the elk that waskilled was a wild animal. It therefore remains to be consideredwhether the animal was captured. 1 think the evidence disclosedthat it had not been captured. The evidence of Heenhamy andMenika, the only witnesses for the prosecution, shows thut theysaw a number of men^chasing the elk in question, and then surroundit and beat it to death with sticks, while the fifth accused, after theanimal had fallen, ripped open its stomach with a knife. Thisevidence, therefore, to my mind shows that the animal had not beencaptured. There is no question as to the cruel manner in whichthe accused hud behaved, for the elk was heavy with young, butI think the accused are entitled to be acquitted and dischargedfor the reason that, they have committed no offence punishableunder the Ordinance.
I accordingly set aside the conviction, and acquit the accused.
INSPECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO