Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 février 2020, 2020 PL2 25 – Pce v Latour and anor

P a g e | 1

Pce v Latour and anor

2020 PL2 25

POLICE v LATOUR and ANOR

CN:1818/19 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V 1. LATOUR Marie Rachel 2. ALLEEMUDDER Jean Stephen Alex

JUDGMENT

Both Accused stand charged with the offence of Assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused no.1 was represented by Counsel, whilst accused no.2 was not represented. Prosecution produced the PF 58 of witness no.4, marked as Doc A. Prosecution called witness no.1 PC Sewlall, who read and produced defence statement of the accused, marked as Doc B. The witness was cross-examined by Counsel.

P a g e | 2

Prosecution called witness no.2, CPL Jeetoo, who read and produced defence statement of accused no.2, marked as Doc C. Prosecution called witness no.4, Miss Marie Eodie Gaelle Laurent, who related that on the material day, she was proceeding home with her sister Laeticia, following which there which accused no.1 made fun of her sister. She stopped to speak to accused no.1, following which the latter assaulted her. She defended herself. Accused no.1 assaulted her on the face with her hands. The witness explained that she sustained a scratch at the level of her neck. Accused no.1 was accompanied by accused no.2. The witness explained that as she was arguing with accused no.1, accused no.2 pulled her and assaulted her by slapping her. She sustained injuries at the level of her face, following which she attended treatment. The witness was duly cross-examined by Counsel. Prosecution then called witness no.5, Miss Marie Laeticia Laurent, who related that on the material day, she was in company of her sister, Elodie, when accused no.1 picked a fight with her sister. Thereafter, accused no.1 assaulted her sister and the latter defended herself. The witness explained that her sister was assaulted all over and that she had a mark on her face. Thereafter, accused no.2 assaulted her sister. The witness was duly cross-examined by Counsel. The case was then closed for Prosecution. The case was closed for accused no.1. Accused no.2 was informed of his Constitutional rights in creole. Accused no.2 elected to make a statement from the dock. He stated that he saw the two sisters insulting Rachel and attempting to assault her. He explained that he merely stopped them from insulting her. The case was then closed for Accused no.2. 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:

P a g e | 3

« 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 » « 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 took note of the following: • There is bad blood between witness no 5 and accused no.1. • Witness no 4 admitted to having assaulted accused no.1 and claimed to have acted in self- defence. • Given the nature of this case, which appears to be an underlying rivalry, there is no evidence to indicate who assaulted the other first. • This case is based exclusively on the testimony of two witnesses, who happen to be sisters and who clearly have an axe to grind with accused parties.

The Court is of the view that it would be unsafe to rely on the testimony of witnesses 4 and 5 in the circumstances.

The Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the case is accordingly dismissed for both accused.

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut ( A. Senior District Magistrate)

P a g e | 4

Delivered on 28 February 2020