Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 LPW 18 – Police v Vaishnavi Ramchurun & Anor

Page 1 of 6

Police v Vaishnavi Ramchurun & Anor

2026 LPW 18

CN: 5720/23

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of –

Police

v/s

1. Vaishnavi Ramchurun 2. Kirtee Nunkoo

JUDGMENT

The charge

Both accused parties stand charged with having, on or about 27 August 2020, at Dr Pepin Street, Beau Bassin, wilfully and unlawfully assaulted one Mr Chand Ramchurun, in breach of section 230(1) of the Criminal Code.

They both pleaded not guilty to the charge and were both inops consilii.

The case for the Prosecution

The prosecution case relied, inter alia, on the testimonies of two witnesses.

There being no objection on behalf of the accused parties to that course of action, one defence statement of each of the accused parties was produced by the Prosecutor following the demise of the recording officer.

Mr Chand Ramchurun (Witness 3), the complainant, then gave evidence. He explained that on 27 August 2020 there was an incident involving his family members. His brother, Mr Rajendra Ramchurun, insulted his son in connection with the parking place of the latter’s car and wanted to cause damage to the car. His son tried to calm Mr Rajendra Ramchurun down but to no avail.

Another brother, one Mr Dayan Ramchurun, then came on the locus and insulted Mrs Purneema Devi Ramchurun, the daughter of Witness 3. Then, the wife of Rajendra Ramchurun and her two daughters arrived on the scene and assaulted Witness 3 by punching him on the head. He felt pain and experienced a headache. He attended the hospital for treatment.

Page 2 of 6

In Court, Witness 3 identified the accused parties as being the very persons who had assaulted him on the material day. He also informed the Court that their mother who was at the time present with them had since passed away. Under cross-examination, Witness 3 stated that –

(a) he has been an invalid since the year 2016 and suffers from an eye problem;

(b) his care-giver is his wife who was not present at the time of the incident;

(c) despite the latter’s absence, he is certain about the identity of his assailants as the whole incident was captured on camera;

(d) he did not produce the footage to the police as he wanted the enquiry to be completed first before doing so;

(e) he cannot say with what hand Accused No. 1 assaulted him;

(f) his children saw Accused No. 1 assaulting him and told him so which is why he can be sure of it;

(g) his daughter also made a complaint against Mr Dayan Ramchurun but the case file somehow disappeared; and

(h) he has some 15-20 % vision.

Then came the turn of Mrs Purneema Devi Ramchurun (Witness 4). She explained that she had had to give another statement to the police in connection with the present matter in 2023 inasmuch as the police had misplaced her original statement.

In 2020, an issue arose due to the parking place of her brother’s car. The father of the accused parties was dissatisfied with where the car was parked and had an altercation with her brother. The dispute escalated to the point where the mother of the accused parties took a gallon of washing liquid and assaulted her father. The two accused parties also assaulted him.

Witness 4 was inside the house when she heard a noise. She then went outside, intervened in the dispute and took her father inside. She maintained that she had witnesses the incident.

Under cross-examination, Witness 4 stated that –

(a) she was, in fact, outside the house;

Page 3 of 6

(b) she intervened when she saw the mother of the accused parties assaulting her father;

(c) in fact, the accused parties and their mother were all assaulting her father at the same time;

(d) she cannot recall with which hand Accused No. 1 was assaulting her father;

(e) she was at a distance of one metre from her father;

(f) the father of the accused parties was also there but she did not see him assaulting her father;

(g) there are both photographs and a footage of the incident;

(h) her father cannot see properly for more than ten years and his testimony is based both on what she told him as well as his injuries;

(i) her father received blows and slaps on his head and was also hit with a gallon;

(j) the footage was produced to the police but has gone missing;

(k) she has had to give statements to several police officers, some three to four times, as they all kept disappearing;

(l) the lane where the car was kept is a private one and no complaint has been received about the car being a nuisance there;

(m) she did not see Accused No. 2 hitting her father but saw her hands moving; and

(n) she was not assaulted when she intervened to extricate her father.

The case for the Defence

When explained their respective rights, each accused party elected to depose under oath.

Accused No. 1 explained that a fight was already ongoing when she woke up on the material day. She heard expletives being uttered outside and went to enquire. There, she saw her father and Witness 3 in a verbal exchange. She was on a terrace and they were some 10 metres away. She saw Witness 3 punch her father and she intervened to help him.

Page 4 of 6

At that point Witness 3 started assaulting her by scratching at her. The mother of Accused No. 1 in turn intervened and assaulted Witness 3 with a gallon that she had in her hand. The daughter of Witness 3 then took him away. Accused No. 1 further explained that she was there only to defend her father and mother. Her father reported the matter straightaway to the Beau Bassin Police Station. She was a university student at the time and had courses to attend. Later in the afternoon, after her courses, she also lodged a police complaint as she had scratch marks on her body. She maintained that she never assaulted Witness 3.

Accused No. 2 narrated that, on the day of the incident, she was getting ready to go to work whilst her father had gone out to fetch bread. She heard an argument between her father and Witness 3 and went out to enquire. The argument was due to the fact that her father had, on the eve, some difficulty in riding his bicycle owing to a car parked on the road. Accused No. 2 was a mere spectator as the dispute was between two brothers.

At some point, Witness 3 punched her father. Her mother was also there and was holding an empty gallon. She started hitting Witness 3 with that container. That was when Accused No. 2 intervened and pulled her father to prevent him from getting assaulted any further. Accused No. 2 maintained that she was there only to stop the fight and at no point did she assault Witness 3.

In their respective defence statements, both accused parties also denied whatever was being reproached of them and asserted that they were not on good terms with Witness 3.

Two defence witnesses were also called.

Mr Rajendra Ramchurun explained that an incident had occurred between him and Witness 3 due to the parking of a car following which his wife assaulted Witness 3. Witness 3 has laid charges against his daughters when, in fact, they had nothing to do with the dispute. Witness 3 is lying and he does not know why he is doing so.

Mrs Manisha Ramchurun then informed the Court that she is the aunt of the two accused parties and lives in the same yard as them. At the time of the incident, she was inside her house but went outside once she heard an argument. She saw Witness 3 assaulting Accused No. 1. She intervened to stop the fight. Under cross- examination, she confirmed that she did not see the beginning of the incident and only testified as to what she saw.

Analysis

I have carefully weighed the evidence on record.

I must say, at the outset, that I have not been impressed by the testimonies of Witness 3 and Witness 4. Their evidence, when considered and assessed collectively,

Page 5 of 6

smelled of concoction and simply cannot be relied upon to reach a conviction that would be safe.

Firstly, I have seen the build and heard the tone of both Witness 3 and Mr Rajendra Ramchurun, the first witness called by the defence, as they both gave evidence in Court. Having done that, it is quite inconceivable to me that the former could have, in any way, felt intimidated by the latter.

Secondly, despite the claim put forward by the prosecution witnesses as to the perceived invalidity of Witness 3, the latter carried himself quite well within the Courtroom setting to the extent of having no difficulty in identifying the accused parties as his alleged assailants despite the fact that they stood in the dock some ten metres away. It would appear that Witness 3 is in receipt of a pension by virtue of that invalidity which was apparently suspended for some time following a complaint by the accused parties. This bears testimony to the fragmented family relationship and the bad blood between the parties.

Thirdly, whereas Witness 3 testified to the effect that he was waiting for the police enquiry to be complete to make use of the alleged footage of the incident, Witness 4 would want me to believe that the said footage has been handed over to the police but has been tampered with. In fact, I take with a pinch of salt the very existence of any footage which, according to me, may well have been a creation of the minds of the prosecution witnesses to try and lend some credence to their otherwise incredulous version.

Fourthly, this claim about the fictitious footage leads me to also frown upon the other sabotage claim made by Witness 4 to the effect that she has had to give several statements to several police officers as they all kept disappearing – it smacked of exaggeration, elaboration and dramatization the moment it was made by Witness 4 in Court.

Fifthly, neither of the prosecution witnesses could say, with any degree of certainty, which hand was used by Accused No. 1 to carry out the alleged assault on Witness 3, with Witness 4 conceding, under cross-examination, that she equally did not see Accused No. 2 assaulting her father but only saw her hands moving and this is what led her to presumably draw the inference of the assault by the latter.

Sixthly, if the version of Witness 4 is to be believed, there appears to have been a common relentless enterprise by both accused parties and their mother in assaulting Witness 3 on 27 August 2020. Yet, their persistent aggression somehow stopped at the right moment to enable Witness 4 to intervene and extract her father from that situation whilst remaining herself unscathed. This beggars belief.

I am aware that inconsistencies are to be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness – Saman v The State (2004 SCJ 3).

Page 6 of 6

As stated previously, having had the opportunity to see Witness 3 and Witness 4 depose in Court, I am not convinced that they have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That being the case, it would be completely unsafe for me to rely on their testimonies and reach a finding of guilt in the present matter.

The more so bearing in mind the consistent version put forward by the accused parties and buttressed by the corroborating evidence of the two defence witnesses. I believe them.

In these circumstances, there has been raised in my mind a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused parties and I grant them the benefit of that doubt.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above, given that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I dismiss the charge against the accused parties.

H. H. A. Rohamally Senior District Magistrate

29 April 2026