( 66 )
Present: Mr. Justice Grenier.
ZOYSA v. EDORIS APPU et al.
P. C., Balapitiya, 30,731.
Mischief—Cutting off ears and tail of a cow—“ Maiming "—Permanentinjury—Penal Code, ss. 410 and 412.
Cutting of the ears and tail of a cow does not amount to“ maiming ” within the meaning of section 412 of the Penal Code.
PPEAL by the accused from a conviction under section 410 ofthe Penal Code.
The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Bawa, for the accused, appellant.
Soyza, for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
September 24, 1907. Grenier A.J.—
The facts of this case were not disputed, but it was argued byMr. Bawa for the appellants that the charge should have been laidunder section 412 and not under section 410 of the Penal Code.The appellants inflicted certain injuries on the complainant’s cow,which the Magistrate has rightly described as very cruel. They
i 1 C. <t K. 539.
( 67 )
appear to have cut off tie animal’s ears as well a§, its tail; and Iagree with lie Magistrate that lie act was a malicious one, andintended to cause loss or damage to lie complainant. The cowwas in milk at the time, and the complainant stated that she gaveabout six bottles of milk every morning, and that until the animalrecovered from the injuries inflicted on it he would not be able tomilk it. He estimated the loss to be at Bs. 50. I am of opinionthat the charge was rightly laid under section 410, because the word“ maiming ” as used in section 412 implies any injury by which thespeed or endurance or use of a domestic animal has been permanentlydiminished. In the case of Rex v. Owens1 it was held thatpouring acid into the eye of a mare and thereby' blinding her was“ maiming.” But if a person inflicted a wound on an animalwhereby it was disabled for some days only, it was held in the caseof Subrao2 that the offence would fall under section 426 of theIndian Penal Code, which corresponds to section 409 of our Code.In the case of Nga Tha3 it was held that where a pony's ribswere broken so as permanently to diminish its usefulness, the animalshould be considered as “ maimed.” It cannot be said in this casethat the use of the cow has been permanently affected or diminishedby the injuries inflicted on it, and the Magistrate was therefore rightin convicting the appellants under section 410. I would affirm theconviction and sentence.
September 2 4
ZOYSA v. EDORIS APPU et al