Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 MOK 27 – police v mootoo

police v mootoo

2026 MOK 27

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA

CN:2098/25

Police v Natisha Shabneez MOOTOO

Judgment

Accused is charged with the offence of damaging enclosure in breach of section 362 of the Criminal Code.

She pleaded not guilty and was not represented.

The Prosecution called witness 1 who produced the defence statement of Accused which contains a denial. He was not cross examined.

Witness 2 was called. He was the one who called on spot after the incident. He stated having seen 5 broken window panes as well as stones on the floor. There were also shattered pieces of glasses. There were no independent witness who came forward. He was not cross examined.

Witness 3, the declarant deponed. She stated that on the material day she was at her place watching tv. She heard noises of windows being smashed. She went to her room and saw stones on the floor and shattered glasses. From her from and through the window, she saw the accused who was outside throwing rocks. Accused’s husband as well was present. Accused damaged a window in her room and several others in another room. Value of same was unknown. The declarant stated that she was sure that it was accused who damaged the windows.

She was cross examined and stated having seen the accused damaging the windows. She insisted that it was accused who damaged the windows and that the husband was at the window of his house and telling accused not to throw stones at her windows for fear of consequences.

Accused deponed under oath. She stated that she was at her place on that day and she got into an argument with her husband regarding the relationship between him and the declarant. She had asked the declarant shortly before on the phone and she had refused to answer on that issue. She did hear noise of windows smashing but denied that it was her.

Accused called her husband as witness. He stated that they got into an argument regarding his relationship with the declarant. The police came and they came aware that the declarant reported a case against his wife. He even stated that he had 2 workers outside on that day waiting for their salary.

In cross examination he confirmed that he did not give any statement. He agreed that the accused was angry when she learned about their relationship. He did not hear windows smashing. He stated that he was not here as a temoin de complaisance.

I have duly analysed the evidence on record as well as assessed the testimony and demeanour of the witnesses. I bear in mind that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Clearly, there is bad blood between accused and declarant who are neighbours. The reason behind is the illicit relationship between the husband of accused and the declarant. Hence, I cannot discard the risk of concoction.

Having said so, I have noted the following discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution: a. Declarant stated that when she reached her room, there were already shattered glasses on the floor. Both accused and her husband were present outside. It was only declarant throwing rocks and damaged 1 window in her room and several in other rooms. However there is no evidence which shows that damages were caused to panes in other rooms. And this is not corroborated by the officer who went on spot. b. Moreover, the declarant did not see accused breaking the window in her room as she was watching tv at that time. c. Also, the declarant deponed and stated that she saw the accused and her husband through her window outside her room. They were on an ‘impasse’ which separates both houses. However in cross examination, she says that accused only was outside whilst the husband was in his house by the window.

With regards to the evidence of the husband, accused’s witness. I am alive to the fact that the defence Witness, could potentially be a “témoin de complaisance”, trying to exculpate the Accused, who is his wife. However, taking into account the history of bad blood between the Accused and the declarant -Moctee v The State (2024 SCJ 61), and as highlighted by the defence witness and the accused from dock, that the declarant was confronted with this issue by the accused and she refused to reply to answer, together with the evidence of the declarant that she was being harassed by the accused and she refused to answer

her calls, I cannot exclude the possibility that the declarant may have levelled a false charge against the Accused out of spite.

Moreover, the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the declarant who is the main witness for the prosecution also cause some doubt in my mind as to the author of the damages as well as the items which have been damaged.

Hence, I find the present matter to be a fit and proper case to apply the principle of the presumption of innocence as laid out in Goburdhun v The Queen 1956 MR 503, where it was held that: “When, therefore, the sum total of the evidence in the case is taken into account, there was, in effect, the word of the victim as against the denial of the appellant. It is in such a case, particularly, that the principle of the presumption of innocence comes into operation. The application of that principle in every criminal case is the foundation of the right of the accused person to insist that the prosecution should discharge the onus that rests upon it to prove that he is guilty.”

In the given circumstances, the court is therefore satisfied that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused and I accordingly dismiss the charge against her.

G.Rampoortab Senior District Magistrate 29.4.26