Animal rights group calls for swift probe, vehicle identification and prosecution under Animal Welfare Act 2015
PETALING JAYA: Police must immediately secure CCTV footage and other evidence before it is lost or overwritten in the case involving the death of a puppy in Port Dickson, Lawyers for Animal Rights (LAR) said.
Its chairman Rajesh Nagarajan said the evidence should be preserved without delay as every day that passed could make the investigation more difficult and weaken the case.
It also called for the white Mitsubishi Triton allegedly involved in the incident to be identified and traced immediately.
LAR said a veterinary forensic report should be obtained to establish the precise cause of death and corroborate the account that the puppy was struck a second time.
Statements should also be taken from all available witnesses, including those who arrived at the scene after the incident, it said.
“Each of these steps becomes harder, and the evidence weaker, with every day that passes,” said LAR in a statement today.
According to a police report lodged at Balai Polis Lukut, a white Mitsubishi Triton struck the puppy before allegedly striking it a second time, killing it.
LAR said the incident should not be dismissed as a momentary lapse of attention, an act of negligence or an “unfortunate accident”.
“The facts, as reported, point to something else entirely – a deliberate act of cruelty,” it said.
In a social media post, a woman who said she had been feeding the stray dog for two months claimed the animal was resting near a parking area and was not in the middle of the road when it was struck.
She also claimed CCTV footage showed the vehicle running over the dog twice and appealed for help to identify it.
She said she had tried to zoom in on the footage to obtain the vehicle’s registration number, but the image was too blurry.
The post identified the location as Jalan Springhill 9/12, Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan.
“I had plans to take her for vaccination and eventually have her neutered. I thought I still had time. But just like that, she was gone,” she said.
LAR said what made the case particularly troubling was not simply that a defenceless animal had been struck by a vehicle, but that the vehicle allegedly returned and struck the same animal a second time.
LAR called for the authorities to investigate and prosecute the case under the Animal Welfare Act 2015, particularly Sections 29(1)(a) and 29(1)(e).
It said Section 29(1)(a) criminalises the cruel beating, terrifying or torturing of an animal, while Section 29(1)(e) criminalises wantonly or unreasonably causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal.
LAR said the alleged conduct was precisely the kind of cruelty the provisions were enacted to punish.
It said any attempt to reduce the case to a mere property offence under the Penal Code would seriously mischaracterise the law and undermine the legislative intent behind the Animal Welfare Act.
“Animals are not disposable objects; they are sentient beings entitled to protection from cruelty, and the law should be applied accordingly,” said LAR.
LAR urged police and the relevant authorities to treat the matter with urgency and not allow it to become another routine file.
The group said the case did not stand alone, describing it as part of a pattern seen too often in Malaysia involving casual and unchecked violence against animals that goes uninvestigated or is quietly downgraded into something less than what it is.
LAR called for the case to be immediately classified under the Animal Welfare Act 2015, the person responsible to be swiftly identified and arrested, and the matter prosecuted to the maximum extent permitted by law.
It said there should be no downgrading of the charge and no delay in bringing the case to court.
“A society cannot describe itself as civilised while conduct of this kind goes unpunished,” said LAR.
