Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 mai 2020, 2020 ROD 20 – POLICE V FELICITE GEORGES WINTER

POLICE V FELICITE GEORGES WINTER

2020 ROD 20

Cause No: 1048/2019 THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

WINTER GEORGES FELIC ITE ———- JUDGMENT Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of assault in breach of section 228 and 230(1) of the Criminal Code, as amended. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted of Counsel at trial. The case for the prosecution. 2. On 14 February 2019, around 14.30 hours, Marie France Casimir (“W3”) was at her place at Camp Paul and there was Accused who is also her husband and who was taking his musical instrument from her house. She asked Accused where he was going and prevented to go and it is then that Accused pressed her left forearm and left the house. The case for the defence.

3. Accused, from the dock stated that he is married to W3 but he now wants to end that relationship because W3 consumes alcohol constantly and goes to night club.

The law.

4. As regards to the law in relation to the present charge, section 230 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:- 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 two years, and by a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees.

Assessments.

5. I have assessed all the evidence on record and examined the version of Accused and of W3.

6. This is case where Accused married W3 at a time when everything was all good and he well knew the habits of W3. For unknown reasons, Accused decided that it was time to put a halt at this style of living and it is then that Accused decided to take all his personal belonging from the house of W3 and the alleged incident occurred at that point. Accused alleged that W3 was drunk at the material time but this allegation cannot stand as the medical certificate issued to W3 states that W3 was not under the influence of alcohol at the material time. Having said that, W3 testified that Accused applied force at her left forearm and added in cross examination that Accused also pushed her against a metal sheet. This piece of evidence is indeed supported by the medical examination certificate of W3 as it was found that W3 had ecchymosis at the left forearm. Hence, I find that Accused indeed assaulted W3 and this act was committed intentionally so that he could either remove his belongings or to avoid W3 preventing him to leave the premises

Conclusion.

7. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, I find Accused guilty as charged.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 14 May 2020