Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 avril 2026, 2026 SAV 54 – POLICE v N LISETTE & ORS

Page 1 POLICE v N LISETTE & ORS

2026 SAV 54

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Cause No.: 84/20

Police

v/s

1. Nataniel Lisette 2. Marie Jocelyne Lisette 3. Marie Sarone Daniella Lisette 4. Marie Diana Thrudy Beatrice Ephigene

Judgment

All four accused stand charged with the offence of « Assault » in breach of Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code. As per the information dated 3rd February 2020, all four accused stand charged with having on or about the 31st January 2019, willfully and unlawfully committed an assault in and upon the person of one Miss Marie Claire Sophie Allette.

All four accused pleaded not guilty and were inops consilii. The case for the Prosecution was conducted by Inspector Dwarka.

Case for the Prosecution

Three witnesses deponed on behalf of the Prosecution, namely the recording officers PS Ramsamy and PC Nobinchunderghose and the complainant Ms M C S Allette.

Witness no. 1, PS Ramsamy, gave evidence to the effect that on the 19th May 2019 at 10.30 hours, 11.05 hours and 11.45 hours respectively he had recorded a statement

Page 2 from respectively accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Docs B, C and D respectively). Witness no. 1 was not cross-examined.

Witness no. 2, PC Nobinchunderghose, gave evidence to the effect that on the 9th September 2019 at 12.30 hours, he had recorded a statement from accused no. 4 (Doc E). He was not cross-examined.

Witness no. 3, Ms M C S Allette, is the complainant and she stated that she had made three complaints of assault against accused nos. 1, 2 and 4. She was however not able to recollect the incident which had occurred on the material date nor the contents of her statement to the police put to her.

The complainant was not cross-examined.

The PF 58 issued to the complainant was produced by the Prosecution (Doc A).

Case for the Defence

While accused nos. 3 and 4 elected to remain silent, accused nos. 1 and 2, from the dock, denied any involvement.

In their respective out of court statements, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 had denied the evidence against them. In her out of court statement (Doc E), accused no. 4 had admitted having pushed the complainant and pulled her hair during an argument.

The Law

The offence of assault is provided in Section 228(1) of the Criminal Code in the following terms:

Any person who wilfully inflicts any wound or blow, or is the author of any other violence or assault shall if such act of violence has caused any sickness or incapacity for personal labour for more than 20 days, be punished by imprisonment and a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees.

All four accused parties, in the present case have been charged under Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code which provides that:

Page 3

Where such wound, blow or other violence or assault has not caused any sickness or incapacity from personal labour of the description mentioned in section 228 the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, and by a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees.

Analysis

The presumption of innocence established by Section 10(2)(a) of the Constitution places a burden upon the Prosecution to prove each element of the offence with which the accused has been charged. In fact, the burden rests on the Prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt 1 . When at the close of the case for the Prosecution, a prima facie case has been clearly established against the accused, the burden then shifts on him to satisfy the Court why it should not act on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution 2 .

It was therefore incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove that on the material date, all four accused parties assaulted the complainant as averred in the information.

As regards accused no. 4, I consider that the best evidence that can be produced by the Prosecution against an accused is a voluntary confession by the accused party that is direct and positive and had been satisfactorily proved 3 . In the present case as well, the recording officer, witness no. 2, has produced accused no. 4’s statement (Doc E) which according to him was recorded after the latter was informed of the charge against her and of her constitutional rights and was duly cautioned. Pursuant to Doc E being read over to accused no. 4, she signed it. Doc E further contains a mention to the effect that it had been read over to accused no. 4, its contents are correct, she had nothing to add, remove or correct therefrom and had been voluntarily recorded, next to which accused no. 4 signed.

Neither has the defence challenged the admissibility of Doc E, nor was witness no. 2 cross-examined as to the voluntariness of same. In the circumstances, I have no

1 Boodhoo A. v The State [2004 SCJ 235] 2 Andoo M vs The Queen [1989 SCJ 257] 3 Director Of Public Prosecutions v Aumont J.P [1989 SCJ 338]

Page 4 qualms in relying upon the voluntary admissions made by accused no. 4 in her out of court statement wherein she had unequivocally admitted having pushed the complainant and pulled her hair during an argument. I consider that accused no. 4 has not been able to substantiate and establish any defence of self-defence and as per her own admissions in Doc E, it instead appears that she acted in retribution.

As regards accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, the evidence of the complainant was adduced as that of the main witness for the Prosecution. Having had the opportunity of seeing her depone under oath, I have accordingly assessed her evidence and demeanour.

The complainant, I find, has cut a poor figure in Court for she has been utterly unable to recollect and depone in respect of even the gist of her complaint to the police. She was able to state that she had made complaints of assault to the police against accused nos. 1, 2 and 4. However, even when her memory was refreshed and the salient parts of her statement to the police were put to her, the complainant was unable to recollect same. I do bear in mind that the complainant has deponed in Court some seven years after the material date and was not being called upon to undergo a memory test. She has also repeatedly claimed that her memory was failing her due to the passage of time. I however find that the incident which the complainant had reported to the police was not a mundane and routine one but one involving several of her relatives who each assaulted her. I therefore consider that the complainant should have been able to recollect and depone in respect of at least the gist of her complaint to the police. This she has utterly failed to do.

I do note that when she was medically examined on the day following the material date, the complainant was found to bear certain injuries as per the contents of the independent PF 58 issued to her (Doc A). I however find that the complainant’s testimony does not establish how she sustained those injuries or whether she sustained those injuries as a result of any wound, blow, other violence or assault inflicted upon her by accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well. In fact, the complainant was even unable to recollect whether she had attended hospital in the present matter.

Conclusion

In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has not been able to prove the case against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. The charge against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 is therefore dismissed. I on the other hand find that the

Page 5 Prosecution has proved the case against accused no. 4 beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore find accused no. 4 guilty as charged.

A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 1st April 2026