Mohamed Hemed Kakopa v. R., Crim. App. 567-D-67, 20/9/67, 20/9/67, Georges C. J.

Mohamed Hemed Kakopa v. R., Crim. App. 567-D-67, 20/9/67, 20/9/67, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of stealing by finding. [P.C. ss. 248(4), 265.] There was evidence that one Ayubu had been hunting and had shot an elephant several times in the leg but that the elephant had escaped. Two days later accused and a guide came upon the dead body of the elephant. The guide told accused the elephant belonged to Ayubu but accused denied this and took the tusks. Prior to the trial the guide had given a statement to the police which contradicted his testimony at the trial.

            Held: (1) If a witness has previously made a statement contradictory to his testimony at the trial, his testimony at the trial, his testimony should be viewed with great suspicion and should be acted upon only where the witness can offer satisfactory explanation for the change in his story.(2) Section 257 of the Penal Code states that “wild animals in the enjoyment of their natural liberty are not capable of being stolen, but their dead bodies are capable of being stolen, but their dead bodies are capable of being stolen.” To obtain ownership, a hunter cannot merely injure an animal, he must reduce it to possession. There fore, the elephant was not the property of Ayub. (3) Accused should have been charged with taking a government trophy. [Citing section 471 (b) of the Fauna Conservation Ordinance, Cap. 302.]