Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 MOK 28 – police v dhorah & Anor

police v dhorah & Anor

2026 MOK 28

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA

CN:4472/24

Police v Preetam DHORAH & Anor

Judgment

Accused are charged with the offence of insult in breach of section 296(a) of the Criminal Code.

They pleaded not guilty and was not represented.

The prosecution called the enquiring officer who stated that both accused declined to give any statement. He was not cross examined.

The declarant deponed in the present case. He identified both accused in court and stated that on the material day, he was at his entrance when he saw both accused standing on the road. There was a discussion which ensued between him and accused no.1. The latter stated “mo ena l’argent moi, c’est qui mo kapav fer are ou”. He could not recall anything else. Regarding accused o.2, he stated that he spoke to him amicably.

In cross examination he stated that accused no.1 said that he will kill him and throw in Bassin Blanc. When queried as to where accused no1 was, declarant stated that the latter was at his place, in his house.

Both accused from the dock denied the charge against them.

I have duly analysed the evidence on record. I have assessed the demeanour of the declarant. He did not appear to be a credible witness. He was inconsistent in his deposition. Even though I appreciate that the declarant is an old aged person and the time which elapsed since the day of the alleged offence and when he is deponing in court, yet I find that the discrepancies in his deposition are too material in the present case.

With regards to accused no.1 , declarant stated that he was on the road when he allegedly insulted him whilst in cross examination he stated that accused no.1 was in his house. Also the words as allegedly uttered by accused no.1 do not tally with the words averred in the information. Even though I appreciate the fact that some time

has lapsed and I also considered the age of the declarant and that it is not a memory test, yet the words allegedly used by the accused no.1 to the address of the accused as averred in the information and when deponing in court , are far too inconsistent and substantially different.

Accused no.2 on the other hand, has been cleared out by the declarant who stated that he spoke to him amicably on that day.

Hence, I do not find that the prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

For the above reasons, the case against the accused is dismissed .

G.Rampoortab Senior District Magistrate 29.4.26