Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 février 2020, 2020 PL2 17 – Pce v Leung and Ors

P a g e | 1

Pce v Leung and Ors

2020 PL2 17

POLICE v LUNG PAH HANG and Ors

CN:2595/19 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V 1. LEUNG HON TSANG Sandip 2. LEUNG PAH HANG Jean Michel 3. PENGWAH Mohammad Imtiaz JUDGMENT

All three accused stand charged with the offence of Assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. All three accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and Accused 1 and 2 were represented at trial stage whilst Accused no.3 was not represented at trial stage. Prosecution called witness no.3, PC Mohur who stated that he inserted a footnote to the effect that the complainant wore a dressing to the right part of his head. Prosecution called witness no.1, Pc Chitbauhal, who read and produced one statement for accused no.1, marked as Doc A and one statement from accused no.3, marked as Doc B. Prosecution then called witness no.2, CPL Poteeram, who read and produced a statement recorded from accused no.2, marked as Doc C.

P a g e | 2

Prosecution called witness no.4, Mr Muhammad Shah Emambocus, who related that he was accompanied by one Marina and that he was attacked by a group of ten persons. He stated he was assaulted with tools and sustained injuries for which he sought treatment at the hospital. The witness was cross-examined by Counsel. The case for the Prosecution was then closed. Counsel called as Defence witness, Mrs Jessica Leung, who stated that on the material day, she was at her mother’s house waiting for her sister. She was worried about her sister who was in company of the accused. She came back in tears. The witness went to ask the complainant why her sister was crying, following which a group of ten people, who witnessed the dispute came over and assaulted complainant. She stated that accused no.1 was inside, whilst accused no.2 and 3 were together. She voiced out that all three accused never assaulted the complainant. The witness was duly cross-examined. Accused no.3 was informed of his Constitutional rights and elected to remain mute. The case was then closed for the Defence. The Court has considered the evidence on record and has carefully watched the witnesses. • Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code provides: « Lorsque les blessures, les coups ou autres violences ou voies de fait n’auront occasionné aucune maladie ni incapacité de travail personnel de l’espèce mentionnée dans la section 228, le coupable sera puni d’un emprisonnement qui ne pourra excéder un an et d’une amende qui n’ excéderera pas 5,000 roupies. » « Traité de Droit Criminel, Droit Pénal spécial, Merle et Vitu », 2eme Partie, page 1400 defines “la notion du coup” as follows: « Pour la plupart des auteurs, les coups consistaient en toute impression faite sur le corps de la victime par un contact brutal, un choc, même si cette impression ne laisse aucune trace, mais seulement des hématomes, des contusions, des ecchymoses. Les blessures étaient quelque chose de plus et supposaient une rupture de la peau ou des muqueuses, entrainant souvent, mais pas toujours, une effusion de sang : des fractures, brulures, piqures, plaies diverses étaient réputes constituer des blessures »

P a g e | 3

« Traité de Droit Criminel, Droit Pénal spécial, Merle et Vitu », 2eme Partie, page 1404 defines the mental element as follows : « L’acte doit être conscient-l ’auteur savait ou devait savoir qu’il causait dommage a l’intégrité corporelle d’autrui et volontaire, en ce sens qu’il a agi dans le dessein de nuire a la victime. En l’absence d’intention, il y aurait seulement des coups et blessures involontaires. Selon le droit commun, le mobile est sans influence sur la constitution juridique de l’infraction. Le coupable est animé ordinairement d’une volonté agressive, d’un désir de nuire ou d’un sentiment de vengeance. » The Court noted the following: • All three accused denied the charge. • Witness no.3 stated that the complainant bore a dressing at the level of his head and inserted a footnote in the declaration. • The complainant stated that the accused parties “provoked” him. • The complainant agreed that there was indeed a crowd. In the course of cross-examination, he was unable to explain how each of the accused parties assaulted him individually. • The witness for the defence testified in a clear manner. However, the Court bears in mind that accused no.1 and 2 are related to her. • The Court was far from convinced by the testimony of the complainant, whose version came across as unclear and uncertain.

The Court is of the view that the shadow of a doubt has been cast over the version provided by the complainant. The Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismissed the case against accused no.1, 2 and 3.

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut ( A.Senior District Magistrate) Delivered on 26 February 2020