Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 74 – Police v D Mariette

Police v D Mariette

2026 RDR 74

CN: 1270/2024

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

Louis Dario Mariette

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted on an information for the offence of assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence was allegedly committed at Royal Road, St François, on 26.02.2023 (“the material date”). Accused pleaded not guilty and was assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

The case for Prosecution rests essentially on the testimony of witness no. 2. It transpires from her testimony that she went to collect her grandmother from Accused’s place on the material date. The latter stated that her grandmother sat on his bed, a dispute cropped up, and he slapped her on the left cheek with his right hand and she went for treatment. A PF 58 was produced and marked as Doc B.

No evidence was adduced by the defence. The unsworn statement of Accused was produced and marked as Doc A.

“Coups et blessures” is defined in Vocabulaire Juridique, Cornu, as follows :

« Atteinte portée à l’intégrité physique d’autrui : les blessures impliquant une lésion interne ou externe du corps de la victime (ex. plaie, fracture), les coups portés directement par une personne ou à l’aide d’un instrument quelconque consistant en un choc infligé (ex. coup de poing, coup de baton) ».

As regards the elements that need to be established by Prosecution, note 11 of Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale, Violences volontaires, Yves MAYAUD, is of relevance : « La violence se matérialise par un comportement (V. infra, nos 12 et s.), un résultat (V. infra, nos 22 et s.), et un lien de causalité du premier au second (V. infra, nos 54 et s.). Cette trilogie est d'ailleurs le propre de toutes les violences, qu'elles soient intentionnelles ou non intentionnelles, tant, pour les placer parmi les atteintes à l'intégrité de la personne, elles doivent, non seulement relever d'une action dirigée vers un tel résultat, mais encore participer d'un comportement l'ayant effectivement généré. »

Here, though witness no. 2 stated that she went to follow treatment after the alleged assault, it is mentioned in Doc B that she bore no external injury when she was examined on the material date. Some discrepancies were highlighted during cross-examination. She was questioned about why she did not mention in her statement about the fact that her grandmother went to the place of Accused or was sitting on his bed prior to the dispute. She was also questioned about the fact that she mentioned in her statement that she is not in good terms with Accused, and in her testimony, she replied in the negative when it was put to her that she is not in good terms with him. It is apposite to note that she mentioned in her testimony that she does not speak to Accused and does not go to his place. Yet, when it was put to her that on the material date she went there, she argued that she only went to collect her grandmother at the gate.

Having regards these inconsistencies, the Court finds it unsafe to pronounce a conviction especially that there is animosity between Accused and witness no. 2 as it can be gauged not only from the testimony of the latter but also from their demeanour in Court. Consequently, Accused is granted the benefit of the doubt, and the case against him is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 14.04.2026