Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 SAV 67 – POLICE v K K MOHUR

Page 1 POLICE v K K MOHUR

2026 SAV 67

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Cause No.: 1586/24 Police

v/s

Karan Kumar Mohur

Judgment

The accused stands charged with the offence of « Breach of Protection From Domestic Violence Act » in breach of Sections 2 and 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. As per the information dated 10th June 2024, the accused stands charged with having on or about the 28th January 2024, willfully and unlawfully committed an act of domestic violence, to wit: he assaulted one Mrs Yashwanee Mohur his wife.

The accused pleaded not guilty and was inops consilii. The case for the Prosecution was conducted by PS Mattan.

Case for the Prosecution

Only one witness deponed on behalf of the Prosecution, namely the recording officer SI Cheetamun.

Witness no. 1, SI Cheetamun, was the recording officer and he gave evidence to the effect that on the 2nd February 2024 at 11.30 hours, he had recorded a statement from the accused at Grand Bois Police Station (Doc B).

Witness no. 1 was not cross-examined.

Page 2 The PF 58 issued to the complainant on the material date was produced by the Prosecution (Doc A).

Case for the Defence

The accused, from the dock, begged for excuse and promised not to reoffend.

In his out of court statement (Doc B), the accused had admitted that the complainant is his wife with whom he has one common child. The accused had also admitted that on the material date, following an argument, he had thrown the complainant to the ground and slapped her several times on her back, cheek and head causing her to be injured.

The Law

Section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act defines acts of domestic violence as follows:

“domestic violence” includes any of the following acts committed by a person against his spouse, a child of his spouse or another person living under the same roof – (a) willfully inflicting, or attempting to inflict, a wound or blow, or threatening to inflict a wound or blow; (b) willfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place, or threatening to place, the spouse or the other person in fear of physical injury to himself or to one of his children; (c) intimidating, harassing, stalking, ill-treating, insulting, brutality or cruelty; (d) compelling the spouse or the other person by force or threat to engage in any conduct or act, sexual or otherwise, from which the spouse or the other person has the right to abstain; (e) confining or detaining the spouse or the other person, against his will; (f) harming, or threatening to harm, a child of the spouse; (g) causing or attempting to cause, or threatening to cause, damage to the spouse’s or the other person’s property;

Page 3 (h) depriving, without any reasonable excuse, the spouse of resources which the spouse is entitled to, or of payment for rent in respect of shared residence;

Section 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act provides that:

Any person who does an act of domestic violence shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable — (a) on a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees; (b) on a second conviction, to a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; (c) on a third or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

The accused in the present case has been charged with committing an act of domestic violence against his spouse. The term « spouse » is defined in Section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as follows:

“spouse” means a person who – (a) is or has been civilly or religiously married to a person of the opposite sex; (b) is living or has lived with a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife; or (c) whether living together or not with a person of the opposite sex, has a common child with that person;

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

1 Boodhoo A. v The State [2004 SCJ 235]

Page 4 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 the complainant was the spouse of the accused and he committed an act of domestic violence against her in the manner as described in the information.

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. 1, has produced the accused’s statement (Doc B) which according to him was recorded after the latter was informed of the charge against him and of his constitutional rights and was duly cautioned. Pursuant to Doc B being read over to the accused, he signed it. Doc B further contains a mention to the effect that it had been read over to the accused, its contents are correct and he has nothing to add, remove or correct therefrom and has been voluntarily recorded, next to which he signed.

Neither did the accused challenge the admissibility of Doc B, nor did he cross-examine witness no. 1 as to the voluntariness of same. In fact, from the dock, the accused showed remorse and promised not to reoffend. In the circumstances, I have no qualms in relying upon the admissions made by the accused in his out of court statement in which he had recounted how on the material date, following an argument, he had thrown the complainant to the ground and assaulted her on her back, cheek and head. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on the material date, the accused had committed an act of domestic violence against the complainant by assaulting her.

Conclusion

In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I consequently find the accused guilty as charged.

2 Andoo M vs The Queen [1989 SCJ 257] 3 Director Of Public Prosecutions v Aumont J.P [1989 SCJ 338]

Page 5 A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 13th May 2026