Supreme Court of Mauritius, 16 avril 2026, 2026 PL2 10 – Police vs Dawood

Page 1 of 4

Police vs Dawood

2026 PL2 10

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (DIVISION II)

In the matter of: CN 3763/25 POLICE VS SABIHABEN AIYUBBHAI DAWOOD ACCUSED

JUDGMENT

1. The accused stands charged with having committed the offence of threat in breach of sections 224 and 226 of the Criminal Code, by uttering the words, “ena l’acide ladans, kot mo pou trouve toi tousel mo pou zette sa lor to figir, mo pou fer toi mette couche, mo pou zette disang zanimo lor toi, mo pou met vagabond lor to tifi mo pou fer enleve li et viole li” to W2 on 03.12.2023.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. She was unrepresented.

I- PROSECUTION CASE

3. The defence statement contains a denial of the charge. The accused explained that she was not on good terms with the complainant because she had turned down the indecent proposal made by the complainant’s husband.

4. The prosecution’s case rests on the testimony of witness no. 2, who stated in court that she was on a motorcycle driven by her son-in-law when the accused came towards them with a bottle containing some liquid and threatened to throw it on the complainant when

Page 2 of 4

she would be alone. The accused also threatened to send the complainant’s husband to prison.

5. She was cross-examined.

II- CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

6. The accused was explained his right to testify under oath, from the dock, to stay silent and to call witnesses. She denied the charge under oath and explained that she was in bad terms with the complainant who blackmailed her as she had turned down the complainant’s husband.

III- ANALYSIS

7. W2 deponed in a clear manner about the surrounding circumstances in which the accused approached her and her son-in-law. However, her testimony with regards to the threatening words was very evasive. Whilst she remembered the part that the accused threatened to throw acid on her, she completely obliviated the other threats regarding “couches”, “disang zanimo” and threats against her own daughter. It is only when the inconsistency was put to her by the prosecutor that she agreed that the accused also threatened her in those terms.

8. Whilst the court keeps in mind that testifying in court is not a test of memory especially given the passage of time 1 , I find that these inconsistencies are material 2 , especially since the complainant explained that she was traumatised, such that the words would have made a lasting impact.

9. There is another fundamental reason why the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on to substantiate the charge.

1 DHUNNY S. v. THE QUEEN [1991 SCJ 145] 2 SHAM vs THE QUEEN [1982 MR 224].

Page 3 of 4

10. The words used by the accused as stated by the complainant under oath, do not meet the legal requirements as they do not contain any order or condition as per section 226 Criminal Code: “Where the threat, so accompanied by an order or condition, has been made verbally, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.”

11. Indeed, the words mentioned by the complainant in court are merely to the effect that the accused would throw acid on her and cause her to wear diapers and to be covered in animal’s blood. The complainant was not ordered to do anything nor was there any condition attached to the threat.

12. The elements of the charge have been listed in Garçon, Code Pénal Livre III Art. 305 à 308, quoted with approval in MUDHOO H v THE STATE [2012 SCJ 411]: “E. Caractère de la menace. – 36. … … … C’est au juge qu’il appartient de déterminer leur caractère et de décider: 1- Si l’écrit ou le propos incriminé est de nature menaçante; 2- si cette menace a pour objet un attentat contre les personnes puni de peines perpétuelles, ou des violences ou voies de fait; 3- enfin, si elle est sous ordre ou sous condition. ”

13. The words « ena l’acide ladans, kot mo pou trouve toi tousle mo pou zette sa lor to figir, mo pou fer toi mette couche, mo pou zette disang zanimo lor toi» are certainly of a threatening nature aiming to cause violence against the complainant.

14. However, the last element is more problematic because the words stated by the complainant under oath ena l’acide ladans, kot mo pou trouve toi tousel mo pou zette sa lor to figir, mo pou fer toi mette couche, mo pou zette disang zanimo lor toi” do not constitute an order or condition. There is no order to do or not to do anything. Similarly, the threat is not conditional upon anything. I thus find that this last element has not been proved.

CONCLUSION

Page 4 of 4

15. For all these reasons, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused and dismiss the case against the accused.

M. C. CHAVRIMOOTOO -VENKATAKISTNEN District Magistrate 16 April 2026