Supreme Court of Mauritius, 20 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 78 – Police v Ragoonauth

Police v Ragoonauth

2026 RDR 78

CN: 5461/25

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

M Ragoonauth

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted under sections 2 and 13 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as amended by Act 10/16 (“the Act”) for having wilfully and unlawfully committed an act of domestic violence against her father-in-law, one Sharmadeo Ragoonauth (“the Complainant”).

The offence was allegedly committed at Rivière du Rempart on 23.10.2025 (“the material date”). Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

The case for Prosecution rests on the testimony of the Complainant who was called as witness no. 3. He explained that on the material date Accused, being his daughter-in-law, intervened in a dispute between him and his wife. He further explained that she was filming the scene to show to the neighbours, and she swore at him: “gogot”; “falourmama”. He did not agree that this is a false charge but pointed out that he is now in good terms with Accused, she has two children and they all live in his house.

Accused was informed in Creole of her Constitutional rights to remain silent, to testify under solemn affirmation, to make a statement from the dock and to call witnesses. Under solemn affirmation, she denied the charge.

Section 13(2) of the Act read together with section 2 of the Act makes it an offence for any person to commit an act of domestic violence against his spouse, a child of his spouse or another person living under the same roof. The acts of domestic violence include the following: “(a) willfully inflicting, or attempting to inflict, a wound or blow, or threatening to inflict a wound or blow; (b) willfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place, or threatening to place, the spouse or the other person in fear of physical injury to himself or to one of his children; (c) intimidating, harassing, stalking, ill-treating, insulting, brutality or cruelty; …”

In Goburdhun v Queen [1956 MR 503], the Supreme Court made the following observations: “when, therefore, the sum total of the evidence in the case is taken into account, there was, in effect, the word of the victim as against the denial of the appellant. It is in such a case, particularly, that the principle of the presumption of innocence comes into operation. The application of that principle in every criminal case is the foundation of the right of the accused person to insist that the prosecution should discharge the onus that rests upon it to prove that he is guilty.”

Here, there are material discrepancies between testimony of witness no. 3 and the averments as couched in the information. It is averred that Accused uttered the following words to witness no. 3: “to bobok, to ene pilon, to ene gogot personnes pas pour capav met lorde avec moi dans sa lacaz la”. Nevertheless, there is nothing averred in the information about the injurious expressions: “falourmama”. Reciprocally, there is nothing in his testimony of witness no. 3 about the injurious expressions: “to bobok, to ene pilon,..personne pas pour capav met lorde avec moi dans sa lacaz la”.

In addition, Accused denied having sworn at witness no. 3 under solemn affirmation, and she does not appear to violent person. On the contrary, her demeanour in Court shows that she is a calm and responsible mother. All the more so that witness no. 3 himself said that she has two children and they all live together with him in good terms.

In the circumstances, the Court finds it unsafe to pronounce a conviction. Accused is, therefore, granted the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the case against her is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 20.04.2026