Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mars 2026, 2026 UPW 11 – Police v Beekash Aubeeluck

1

Police v Beekash Aubeeluck

2026 UPW 11

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of: –

CN: 7786/23

Police

v

Beekash Aubeeluck

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused stands charged with the offence of “assault” in breach of section 230(1) of the Criminal Code. The Accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge and was assisted by Counsel, Me Mooneapillay.

2. On 2 December 2025, the Court delivered a ruling granting a last postponement to the Prosecution in order secure the attendance of its witnesses. However, on 3 March 2026, witness no.2 was absent. The Prosecutor therefore elected to proceed with its case in the absence of witness no.2.

3. The PF 58 of Witness No.2, dated 16 January 2015 and under the signature of Witness no. 3, was produced by the Prosecution and marked as ‘Doc A’.

4. Witness no.1, PS 6453 Beeceea, read and produced the defence statement of the Accused which he recorded on 26 April 2018 at Curepipe Police station (marked as ‘Doc C’). Under cross-examination, he stated that he was aware of the bad blood between witness no.2 and the Accused. He further confirmed that the Accused was never confronted with the PF 58.

5. The Prosecution subsequently moved to close its case in the absence of witness no.2.

6. No evidence was elicited on behalf of the defence.

7. This Court has duly assessed the evidence on record.

8. The presumption of innocence established by Section 10(2)(a) of the Constitution places a burden upon the Prosecution to prove each element of the offence with which the accused stands charged.

9. No evidence was adduced in Court to the effect that the Accused had indeed committed the offence as laid out in the present information. The Prosecution’s case rested essentially on the testimony of witness no.2 (the complainant) who could not be called to give evidence against the Accused. While the PF 58 produced does indeed show that witness no.2 sustained injuries, no evidence was adduced by the Prosecution to indicate that the Accused had been the cause of the said injuries. I have also considered the out-of-court statement of the Accused wherein he denied the alleged offence.

10. As such, this Court is of the view that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore dismiss the charge against the Accused.

Gavindren S. Coolen District Magistrate 26 March 2026