Supreme Court of Mauritius, 20 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 77 – Police v G M S Cango

Police v G M S Cango

2026 RDR 77

CN: 578/2025

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

G M S Cango

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 Bois d’Oiseaux Road, Poudre d’Or, on 26.05.2024 (“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. 3. It transpires from her testimony that Accused is her brother and the latter hit her with both hands all over the body when she went to visit their mother on the material date. She pointed out that she had blood clots and her clothes were torn. A PF 58 was produced and marked as Doc A. She conceded that there is a property dispute between her and her brother though initially she said that they are on speaking terms. She denied the fact that her brother sought the assistance of the police at around 17.03 hours on the material date because she was quarrelling in the house. She also denied having received any warning from the WPC Perinne not to quarrel with her brother. When questioned about why there is no mention of torn clothes in her statement unlike in her testimony, she argued that she did say this to the police.

The enquiry officer, PC 1843 Marday, was called as witness no. 1. He read over and produced the statement of Accused. Same was marked as Doc B. He confirmed that witness no. 3 reported to the police that Accused scratched her with both hands and her clothes were torn. He also confirmed that there is nothing about torn clothes in the statement of witness no. 3, and in the footnote, only a scratch mark on the neck is mentioned but no other marks are mentioned, namely, over the body.

Accused denied the charge under oath. He explained that his mother requested him to call the police because witness no. 3 illtreated her, and he is not in good terms with his sister.

PS 2726 Mungroo testified under solemn affirmation that he is deputed to produce the diary book entries of Poudre d’Or police station dated 26.05.2024 bearing numbers 84, 85 and 88. He explained that at 17.03 hours Accused requested the police to talk to witness no. 3, at 17.10 hours witness no. 3 recorded a statement against Accused, and at 17.53 hours WPC 813 Perinne reported having administered a warning to witness no. 3 not to seek trouble with Accused to which she acknowledged and promise to keep peace. The entries were listed on a single document. Same was produced and marked as DB list.

“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. 3 stated that she had blood clots when Accused hit her all over the body, Doc A shows that she was examined by the doctor on the material date and she had only a scratch mark on the neck. Similarly, witness no. 1 stated that she bore only a scratch mark on her neck as per the footnote in her statement, and he could not say how she got the said scratch mark.

The Court notes other inconsistencies which further undermine the credibility of the testimony of witness no. 3. Unlike her testimony, there is nothing mentioned in her statement about torn clothes. In addition, contrary to the diary book entries, Doc DB list, she denied in her testimony the fact that Accused went to the police station before her to seek assistance because she was quarrelling, and consequently. the police warned her to keep peace.

In the circumstances, the Court finds it unsafe to pronounce a conviction especially that Accused denied under oath the charge and there is a conflictual relationship between the siblings. Consequently, Accused is granted the benefit of the doubt, and the case against him is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr)

Ag. Senior District Magistrate 20.04.2026