Supreme Court of Mauritius, 16 avril 2026, 2026 FLQ 62 – Police v V Jeewooth
Police v V Jeewooth 2026 FLQ 62 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FLACQ Cause No: 4555/2024 In the matter of: POLICE V VAROON JEEWOOTH JUDGMENT 1. The accused stands charged with the offence of domestic violence contrary to sections 2and 13(2) of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as DVA) as amended by Act 10/2016. He pleaded...
2 min de lecture · 379 mots
Police v V Jeewooth
2026 FLQ 62
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FLACQ
Cause No: 4555/2024 In the matter of: POLICE
V
VAROON JEEWOOTH JUDGMENT
1. The accused stands charged with the offence of domestic violence contrary to sections 2and 13(2) of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as DVA) as amended by Act 10/2016. He pleaded not guilty and was not represented by counsel.
2. Witness no.1, PC 4199 Kader, identified, read and produced a defence statement which he recorded from the accused on 05.06.2024, where the latter denied the allegations against him.
3. Witness no.2 has never been present in court for this matter. When the case came for trial on 19.06.2024, witness no.2 was not present despite having been warned to attend court through her father. The case was postponed to 20.10.2025. However, she was absent on that day, and the court was informed that she was totally unknown at her given address. A new address was provided for witness no.2 and a last postponement was granted to the prosecution on account of the absence of witness no.2. On 30.03.25, the court was informed that witness no.2 had been personally warned to attend court, but was yet again absent without any explanation. The prosecution closed its case in light of the last postponement granted by the court and the fact that witness no.2 was absent despite having been warned personally.
4. The accused denied the charge in his out-of-court statement. He exercised his right to silence during the trial.
5. The guilt of an accused cannot be inferred from his silence. The burden in a criminal case is on the prosecution to positively prove his guilt. In the present matter, the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of establishing the elements of the offence charged. The evidence before the Court is a denial made out of court by the accused.
6. In the circumstances, the court has no alternative but to dismiss the charge against the accused.
Y. Ramsohok
Senior District Magistrate Date: 16.04.2026
Sources officielles : consulter la page source · PDF officiel
Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 7 - Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun
Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun 2026 PMP 7 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 4868/25 In the matter of:- Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Driving without due care and attention in breach of Sections 123C (1)(a) and 52 Second Schedule of Road Traffic Act as amended. 2....
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 6 - Yoan Jonathan Attiow
Yoan Jonathan Attiow 2026 PMP 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 2613/20 In the matter of:- Police v Yoan Jonathan Atthiow JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Assaulting an agent of the civil authority in breach of Section 158 and 159 of the Criminal Code. 2. The information avers that on or...
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
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...