Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 LPW 19 – Police v Yashveen Bhojoo

Page 1 of 3

Police v Yashveen Bhojoo

2026 LPW 19

CN: 3008/21

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of –

Police

v/s

Yashveen Bhojoo

JUDGMENT

The charges

The Accused stands charged with having –

(a) under Count 1 of the Information, on or about 28 September 2020, at Corner Jugnath and Jeewoonarain Lanes, Palma, Quatre Bornes , wilfully and fraudulently abstracted a sum of Rs 300 not belonging to him by using violence towards one Mr Ashvin Gopalun, in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(c) of the Criminal Code; and

(b) alternatively, under Count 2 of the Information, on that date and place, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification, been found to have in his possession a sum of Rs 300 which had been abstracted by means of a crime to the prejudice of one Mr Ashvin Gopalun, in breach of sections 40, 301(1) and 305(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges and was inops consilii.

The case for the Prosecution

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

PC Sookun (Witness 1) produced two unsworn statements that he had recorded from the Accused.

Then came the turn of Mr Ashvin Gopalun (Witness 3), the complainant in the present matter. Witness 3 informed the Court that he had nothing to say in relation to the present matter inasmuch as the Accused is his cousin and he did not wish to

Page 2 of 3

proceed any further with the case. He explained that they were now on good terms and he wanted to maintain their good relationship.

The case for the Defence

The Accused elected to remain silent.

In his defence statements, the Accused denied having committed the offences with which he stands charged even though he admitted that, on the material day, he assaulted one Mr Ashvin Gopalun, his cousin, following a dispute that had arisen between them.

Analysis

I have carefully weighed the evidence on record.

In the light of the testimony of Witness 3, I am of the opinion that not enough evidence has been placed before me in relation to the circumstances of the alleged offences for me to reach a safe conclusion as to the guilt of the Accused in relation thereto.

I have also factored in that no evidence has been ushered by the prosecution in relation to the element of possession (under Count 2 of the Information). It would appear (from what may be gauged from the defence statements of the Accused) that a search was carried out by the police in the house of the Accused but no incriminating article was found there.

Insofar as the admission made by the Accused in his defence statement in relation to the assault on the person of Mr Ashvin Gopalun on 28 September 2020 is concerned, violence has only been mentioned in the Information as an aggravating factor to the main offence of larceny (under Count 1 of the Information).

The main offence not having been established, the aggravating factor cannot stand alone as a separate offence of assault – Queen v Gudjudhur & Anor (1875 MR 135).

Under these circumstances, I cannot but grant the benefit of the doubt to the Accused.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above, given that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I dismiss both charges against the Accused.

Page 3 of 3

H. H. A. Rohamally Senior District Magistrate

29 April 2026