Supreme Court of Mauritius, 22 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 5 – Police v Sydney Pierre Louis

Police v Sydney Pierre Louis

2020 LPW 5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

Cause Number 3337/19

In the matter of:

Police

v/s

Sydney Pierre Louis

JUDGMENT

The Accused stands charged with the offence of ASSAULT in breach of Section 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood inops consilii at trial stage. The Court proceedings were conducted in Creole language for the benefit of the Accused party.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Police Prosecutor produced a PF 58 for witness No.3 signed by witness No.4 and it was marked as Doc A on record.

Prosecution witness No.1, PC Amboorallee explained that he met the Accused party on 16 th September 2018 at 11 45 hours at his place of residence at Trèfles, Rose Hill and interviewed him after having informed him of the charge against him and his Constitutional Rights and duly cautioned him. The formal witness stated that the Accused declined to give a defence statement and stated “Mo pou dire tout dans la cour” and the Accused party elected not to cross examine him.

CPL Vythilingum, Officer in Charge posted at Stanley police station under oath explained that he met the Declarant, witness No.3 personally on 11 th January 2020

at his place of residence at Trèfles, Rose Hill and warned him to attend court today. CPL Vythilingum further stated that the Complainant replied that he had no intention of attending court and the Accused elected not to cross examine him.

In the light of his statement, the Police Prosecutor closed the case for the prosecution.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

After he was explained his Constitutional rights, the Accused elected to remain mute and not to adduce any evidence. The case was then closed for the Defence.

I have considered the evidence on record. I note further that the Accused has denied the charge levelled against him. I have further considered the fact that a Medical Examination Certificate (PF58) was produced by the Prosecution amounting to real evidence on record. The case for the prosecution rested mainly upon the version of the Complainant, Witness No.3 who elected not to attend court and testify against the Accused party. In these circumstances and based on the evidence on record before me, I find that the Prosecution has failed to prove their case against the Accused to the required criminal standard.

For all of the above reasons I grant the Accused the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the present case against him.

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) District Magistrate This 22 nd January 2020