Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 28 – Police v Selven RAYAPEN

Police v Selven RAYAPEN

2026 BMB 28

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number 1961/2025 Police V Selven RAYAPEN JUDGMENT 1. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offences of larceny by journeyman [count 1] and possession of stolen property [count 2] pursuant to sections 301, 309 and 40 of the Criminal Code. He was inops consilii 2. The prosecution’s case is primarily based on the defence statement of the accused. 3. Witness no.1 stated under oath that on the 4 th May 2022 at 13h12, the accused was duly cautioned and explained of his constitutional rights at the prison of Grand River North West where he voluntarily gave and signed a defence statement. The said statement was identified, read out and produced in court and was marked Doc A. 4. Witness no.1 was not cross-examined. 5. The prosecutor informed court that witnesses no. 2 and 3 were not required by the prosecution. The accused was informed of his right to cross-examine these two witnesses but he stated that he had no cross-examination for them. 6. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused made a statement from the dock where he stated that during the course of the enquiry, the declarant came at the police station and told the police he had no problem with him. Accused was released and it was one month later that police came at the prison and told him he had to give a defence statement in that case. He admitted having taken an old tyre. 7. Having considered the evidence on record, the court notes that from the accused’s defence statement, he confessed the case. The confession has not been challenged nor did the accused adduce other incompatible evidence with the confession, this court considers it safe to rely on such confession. I reiterate the principle that “a voluntary

confession by an accused party that was direct and positive and had been satisfactorily proved was the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against the accused” [vide DPP v Aumont 1989 SCJ 338]. 8. I find accused guilty as charged under count 1. The alternate count 2 is thus dismissed.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 13 th April 2026