Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mars 2026, 2026 UPW 12 – Police v Louis Linley Armandine Agathe

1

Police v Louis Linley Armandine Agathe

2026 UPW 12

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of: –

CN: 1005/22

Police

v Louis Linley Armandine Agathe JUDGMENT

1. The Accused stands charged with the offence of ‘Rogue and vagabond’ in breach of section 28(1)(c) and (2) of the Criminal Code(supplementary) Act. The Accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge and was represented by Defence counsel.

2. On 19 March 2025, the witness no.3 was absent but was represented in Court her father, Mr Veesen Paniapen, who produced a letter on her behalf explaining her absence. In the said letter, witness no.3 stated that she was now residing in France and did not wish to proceed with the present case. At a subsequent sitting, the Prosecution filed a memo from the Passport and Immigration Office (PIO) confirming that witness no.3 was abroad and that her date of return was unknown. The Prosecution therefore moved to take a stand. On 12 January 2026, after a number of postponements, the Court was informed that the stand of the Prosecution was for the case to proceed with the testimony of witness no.4 in the absence of witness no.3. However, on 29 January 2026, witness no.4 stated under oath that she did not wish to proceed with the case as well. The stand of the Prosecution was nevertheless for the case to proceed. On 2 March 2026, the case was heard.

3. The Prosecution produced the defence statement of the Accused recorded by witness no.1 at Vacoas Police station on 28 September 2021 at 09.31 hrs (Doc A). He was not cross-examined.

4. The Prosecution elected not to call witness no.2.

5. Witness no.4, Ms. Dishinee Paniapen, was called by the Prosecution to depose under solemn affirmation. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the Prosecutor, witness no.4 could neither recall nor relate the material facts in respect of the statement she gave to the Police. She however admitted that she knew the Accused and positively

identified him in Court. She stated that she did not wish to proceed with the present case against the Accused. She was not cross-examined by Defence counsel.

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

7. I have assessed all the evidence on record and there is no evidence to support the present charge against the accused.

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. Witness no.3, being the main witness as to the facts for the Prosecution in the present matter, has not testified so that the case for the Prosecution rests on the testimony of witness no.4 and the out-of-court statement of the Accused wherein the latter has denied the charge. Witness no.4 quite simply failed to come up to proof.

10. I therefore find that Prosecution has failed to establish the present offence against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. I accordingly dismiss the Information against the Accused.

Gavindren S. Coolen District Magistrate 26 March 2026