Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 75 – Police v J P B Cangy & anor

Police v J P B Cangy & anor

2026 RDR 75

CN: 4994/2022

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

1. James Paul Barthelmy Cangy 2. Jules Gaetan Cangy

JUDGMENT

Accused no. 1 stands charged under count 1 with the offence of assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230(1) of the Criminal Code, and Accused no. 2 stands charged under count 2 with the offence of insult in breach of section 296(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offences were allegedly committed at St Joseph, Grand Gaube, on 02.05.2021 (“material date”). On 27.10.2022 both Accused were absent, and the case was postponed. On 14.02.2023, Accused no. 1 was again absent, count 1 against him was struck out, and the plea was taken for Accused no. 2. The latter pleaded not guilty and he was not represented by Counsel. The matter was postponed on various occasions in the absence of Accused no. 2. On 20.08.2025, Accused no. 2 and witnesses nos. 1 and 2 were present, yet, the matter was postponed in the absence of the supporting witness no. 3. On 03.12.2025, the witnesses started to depose.

The case for Prosecution rests essentially on the testimony of witness no. 2. He testified under oath that on the material date Accused no. 2 came with his son and started to damage a wall under construction on his land, and in so doing, he got injured on his left leg with a concrete block. A PF 58 was produced and marked as Doc A. Witness no. 2 went on to explain that both Accused swore at him, to wit, “to ene grand pitin”.

Witness no. 3 is the sister-in-law of witness no. 2. She explained that Accused no. 2 threw a concrete block on the leg of witness no. 2 and swore at him, to wit, he said to him: “Dans tous neveux, to ene pli grand pitin”.

Accused no. 2, aged 78, was informed in Creole of his Constitutional rights to testify under oath, to make a statement from the dock, to remain silent and to call witnesses. Accused no. 2 denied the charge under oath. He explained that this is a false charge because witness no. 2 and his family are erecting a wall on his land.

The Supreme Court in Saman G. v The State [2004 SCJ 3] made the following observations: “Inconsistencies must therefore be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness. Not every inconsistency is serious and material and inconsistencies need not affect per se the appreciation by a trial Court that a particular witness’s testimony is true.”

It is apposite to note that the testimonies of witnesses nos. 2 and 3 do not tally with the averments as couched in the information. Unlike the testimony of witness no. 3, there is no averment of assault against Accused no. 2. As such, Doc A is of no relevance to the charge of insult as couched under count 2 against Accused no. 2. Unlike the testimonies of witnesses nos. 3 and 2 that the insult was directed towards the latter, it is averred under count 2 that Accused no. 2 uttered the following words: “zotte bannes grand pilon dans famille”. These inconsistencies are material and affect the credibility of the witnesses called by Prosecution.

In the circumstances, the Court finds it unsafe to rely on their testimonies to pronounce a conviction against the Accused no. 2 especially that the latter denied under oath the charges, and it transcends from the evidence on record that there are hostilities between them because of the construction of a wall. Accordingly, the Court grants Accused no. 2 the benefit of the doubt, and count 2 against him is dismissed. Count 1 against Accused no. 1 was struck out at the very outset.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 15.04.2026