Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 juin 2020, 2020 MOK 3 – POLICE v AUCHARAZ R
POLICE v AUCHARAZ R 2020 MOK 3 Cause No: 5105/18 THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA In the matter of: Police v Ramesh Aucharaz JUDGMENT The accused is charged with insult in breach of section 296 of the Criminal Code. He was legally represented by Mr Ramchurn of Counsel during the trial and the proceedings were held in Creole. In support...
2 min de lecture · 362 mots
POLICE v AUCHARAZ R
2020 MOK 3
Cause No: 5105/18
THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA
In the matter of: Police
v
Ramesh Aucharaz JUDGMENT
The accused is charged with insult in breach of section 296 of the Criminal Code. He was legally represented by Mr Ramchurn of Counsel during the trial and the proceedings were held in Creole.
In support of the case for the prosecution, the alleged victim has related how his neighbour insulted him on 17 October 2017 at his place in Dagotière. On the other hand, the accused has denied the charge when he was questioned by the police, and he has exercised his right to silence during the proceedings in Court.
I have considered all the evidence on record. I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the reasons enunciated in the following paragraph.
First, the witness for the prosecution has stated that the accused uttered the words “trappe mo gogot” to his address on the material date, but Constable Amboorallee has mentioned that the alleged victim had reported to the police that the words “filmer mo gogot” were uttered to his address. I consider that even with the passage of time, the witness for the prosecution would have been expected to recall with more accuracy what was uttered to his address bearing in mind that he has claimed that he was mentally stressed as a result of the incident. Second, the alleged victim has stated that the accused was at a distance of 3 metres from him when he was insulted, but Constable Amboorallee has mentioned that the parties were at a distance of 10 metres from each other when the incident occurred. Third, the witness for the prosecution has admitted that he is not on good terms with the accused such that the possibility that the charge is the result of a false and malicious denunciation cannot be excluded.
I accordingly dismiss the charge against the accused.
Navish Jheelan Senior District Magistrate 25 June 2020
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...