Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 84 – Police v Brojomohun & anor

1 of 4

Police v Brojomohun & anor

2026 RDR 84

CN: 4535/2024

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v

1. B S Brojomohun 2. R Mohabeer

JUDGMENT

Accused no. 1 stands charged under counts 1 and 2 of an information with the offences of gross indecent act in public and insult. Accused no. 2 stands charged under count 3 with the offence of insult.

The offences were allegedly committed at Bois d’Oiseaux, Poudre d’Or, on 19.04.2022 (“the material date”). Both Accused pleaded not guilty and were not assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

The case for Prosecution rests essentially on the testimony of witness nos. 3. She explained that witness no. 4 is her brother, Accused no. 1 is her nephew, the latter lowered his short in front of her and his father to show his private part, and he told her the following injurious words: “to dormi avec mo papa”; “kakaliki”. She further explained that Accused no. 2 reproached witness no. 4 of having sold his property to her by uttering the following words in her presence: “To vend to lacaze cent mille avec sa pitin la”. She added that she felt bad because her brother, witness no. 4, and her husband, witness no. 5, were present. During cross-examination, she conceded that she did not see the private parts of Accused no. 1.

Witness no. 4, confirmed that both Accused swore at witness no. 3 by saying the aforesaid impugned words and Accused no. 1, who is his son, lowered his short in front of her in his presence and in presence of witness no. 5.

Both Accused denied the charge under solemn affirmation.

Section 248 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

2 of 4

“Any person who commits any grossly indecent act in public ‘outrage public à la pudeur’ shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and to a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees..”

In Saman G. v The State [2004 SCJ 3], the Supreme Court made the following observations: “The general rule is that a Court is entitled to act on the sole and uncorroborated evidence of a witness who is a victim in a sexual offence case where the Court finds the witness truthful and has addressed its mind to the danger of acting on uncorroborated evidence. (…)

Inconsistencies are often understandable and are likely to occur when, for example, the testimony is given in Court long after the event, or for that matter the witness is a young person who may be shy or overpowered by strange Court surroundings or by the delicate nature of the testimony itself. Inconsistencies must therefore be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness. Not every inconsistency is serious and material and inconsistencies need not affect per se the appreciation by a trial Court that a particular witness’s testimony is true.”

Here, the Court notes that the testimony of witness no. 3 is clear, coherent with the averments as couched in the information, and is corroborated by the testimony of witness no. 4. It is apposite to note that the testimony of witness no. 4 was not challenged by Accused no. 1 because the latter elected not to cross- examine his father. The Court also had the opportunity to look at the demeanour of both Accused, and the witnesses for Prosecution. The testimonies of witnesses nos. 3 and 4 appear truthful, and carry more weight than the mere denial of the accused parties.

In the circumstances, the Court finds Accused no. 1 guilty under counts 1 and 2, and Accused no. 2 guilty under count 3.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 28.04.2026