Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 33 – Police v Louis Christophe THERANCE

Police v Louis Christophe THERANCE

2026 BMB 33

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number 3192/2024 Police V Louis Christophe THERANCE JUDGMENT 1. An aggravated larceny occurred on the 8 th May 2023 at Beaux Songes where a sum of money was fraudulently abstracted. It is the prosecution’s case that the accused did commit the present case together with another co-accused. 2. The accused denied the charges laid down against him and pleaded not guilty to the counts of larceny made by 2 individuals whilst being masked and possession of stolen property, under sections 301, 305, 301A and 40 of the Criminal Code. The accused was unrepresented. 3. In his defence statements which were produced without objection, the accused vehemently denied the charges and denied the allegations made against him by the co-accused. 4. The case for the prosecution rests or falls on the testimony of the said co-accused. 5. Before going into the analysis of the deposition of the co-accused, it is relevant to also highlight the surrounding circumstances of the case, as explained by witnesses no.3 and 4. 6. Witness no.3 testified to the effect that on the 8 th May 2023, he was the bus conductor in a CNT bus travelling from Port-Louis to Beaux Songes. Upon reaching Beaux Songes and after all remaining passengers had exited the bus, two persons pushed the door of the bus and rushed inside. One of them had a knife. A struggle ensued and witness no.3 tried to kick the man who was armed. Money was in his shirt pocket and the man snatched the money away. There was approximately Rs6000 in that pocket and the money belonged to the company CNT.

7. The two persons were clothed in dark clothes and they both had a cloth covering their faces. It was already dark then as the time was 18h50. Both persons bolted away and witness no.3 could not see their face. 8. The testimony of witness no.3 went unshaken and unrebutted. 9. The bus driver – witness no.4 – corroborated the testimony of witness no.3. He related that on the 8 th May 2023, he was driving bus 8187 DC 11 for the CNT company and around 18h50, he stopped at Beaux Songes to drop a few passengers. The place was well known to bus drivers. After passengers alighted from the bus, the bus conductor was going to close the door when two male persons pushed open the door and pushed the bus conductor. One had a weapon and they both attacked the bus conductor and took money from his shirt pocket. By the time witness no.4 had alighted from the bus, the two persons had already bolted away in a bushy area. Witness no.4 stated it would not be possible for him to identify any of the two persons as they had a piece of cloth covering their faces. In all, the sum of Rs6,200 was stolen. 10. Witness no.4 was also not cross-examined. 11. Witness no.5 deposed to the effect that in November 2023, he was prosecuted before the district court of Black River for a case of larceny whilst being masked. The larceny was committed at Beaux Songes. He mentioned Christophe Therance as being the other person who did this case together with him. He mentioned that it was around 18h30 when they attacked a bus conductor and took his money. They had a knife and they had a t-shirt covering our face (‘cagoule’). They ran and went inside the bus. The money was in the bus conductor’s shirt pocket. It was Christophe who snatched the money. 12. The memory of the witness was refreshed in relation to the sum of money which was stolen and upon his memory being refreshed, witness no.5 recalled that the sum of Rs6,200 was stolen. 13. In court, he identified accused as being the Christophe Therance he was mentioning and stated that he knew the accused since childhood. 14. In cross-examination, only one question was put to the witness. He was asked whether he was speaking the truth and the witness replied that it was the truth. 15. The accused made a statement from the dock denying the case against him. 16. I have anxiously considered the testimony of the main witness for the prosecution and I have given myself the warning of the dangers of acting upon the testimony of such witness. Indeed, as expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of State v Ismael & anor 2026 SCJ 138, a co-accused becomes a competent witness for the prosecution where such person has already pleaded guilty and has already been sentenced ‘so as to render him as disinterested as possible’ [citing The Modern Law Review Nov. 1967

Vol.30 Pg 646 and R v Jockson 1855 6 Cox C. C. 525] and that a ‘corroboration warning is mandatory’ where it is the prosecution calling a co-accused to depose against another co-accused [vide Geemul v State 1993 MR 372]. 17. When I consider the detailed testimony of witness no.5, I find that his version has remained consistent with the turn of events as expatiated upon by both the bus driver and conductor. The salient facts can be enumerated as follows: a. That both witness no.5 and the accused ran and rushed inside the bus; b. That the time was around 18h30 and 18h50; c. That they both had a piece of cloth covering their faces; d. That there was a knife with them; e. That the money was in the shirt pocket of the bus conductor; f. That the sum of Rs6,200 was stolen from the conductor 18. I find that I can rely on the testimony of witness no.5 insofar as the participation of the accused is involved. In cross-examination, witness no.5 very composedly replied that he was speaking the truth. When I consider his poised demeanour and the amount of detail he provided to court as to the manner in which he and accused acted on the material day, there is no doubt that witness no.5 was speaking the truth in court. 19. Having barely cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, the deposition of the prosecution witnesses has remained unscathed, unshaken and therefore unrebutted. 20. The denial of the accused party, whether in his defence statement or his statement from the dock, has remained an unsworn version before court and such denial cannot outweigh the value and cogency of sworn testimony of prosecution witnesses [vide DPP v Nepaulsing 2012 SCJ 490]. 21. I find it established therefore that the accused had acted ‘de concert’ with witness no.5 to fraudulently abstract from witness no.3 the sum of Rs6,200 whilst being masked. 22. I find accused guilty as charged under count 1 and I dismiss the alternate count 2 against him.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 30 th April 2026