Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 MBG 5 – POLICE V DOOLEE . P

POLICE V DOOLEE . P

2020 MBG 5

CN: 1640/19

THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRAND PORT

IN THE MATTER OF:- POLICE V DOOLEE POOSMAWTEE

JUDGMENT Accused stands charged with the offence of assault in breach of section 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and appeared inops consilii at trial stage.

At the outset of the trial, the Prosecution produced PF 58 of witness 3, marked as Doc A. Prosecution called PS Laviolette (W1) who read and produced the out of court statement of the Accused and marked as Doc B.

Prosecution then called witness 3, Mrs Rageenee DOOLEE, whose version was in essence to the effect that on 09.08.15, she came back to her place together with her mother and her

sister after attending some prayers. When the accused, who is her mother in law, saw them she became angry as she was not happy that complainant’s family members had come to her place. Following an argument with the accused, the latter assaulted her by giving her a kick in her belly with her right foot. She was hurt and went to the hospital for treatment. The accused chose not to cross examine the complainant.

The case was then closed for the prosecution.

Upon being informed of her constitutional rights, the accused elected to give evidence under oath. The accused explained that she never assaulted witness 3 who is her daughter in law but it was the latter who assaulted her. The accused denied the charge against her though she admitted that she was not on good terms with the complainant and she had an argument with the latter on the material date. She further stated that her neighbour insulted her but she remained evasive and failed to elaborate what happened on the material date.

The accused was cross examined.

The case was then closed for the defence.

It is trite law that the Prosecution has the burden of proving the elements of the offence. In the present case, the Prosecution has to prove that (1) the accused assaulted the complainant and (2) the accused had the intention to assault the complainant, i.e the mens rea.

I have perused the whole evidence on record.

Witness 3, the complainant, deposed in a confident manner. She clearly explained the sequence of events on the material date, explained how the accused assaulted her and the Court found her to be convincing. The evidence clearly demonstrate that the accused assaulted the complainant and she had the intention to do so. The complainant’s testimony remained unshaken since the accused chose not to cross examine her.

On the other hand, the Court was not impressed by the accused who deposed in an uncertain matter and who was unable to give a clear description of what happened on the material date. Moreover, the accused did not make any attempt to undermine the version of the complainant and the Accused’s version did not cast any doubt in the prosecution’s case.

For all the above reasons, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly find the accused guilty as charged.

P. VEERABADRAN- MUDALIAR (MRS) Ag. District Magistrate This 10 th March 2020