Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 34 – Police v Arun Kumar KEESSOON

Police v Arun Kumar KEESSOON

2026 BMB 34

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number 3425/2024 Police V Arun Kumar KEESSOON JUDGMENT 1. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offences of larceny [count 1] and possession of stolen property [count 2] pursuant to sections 301 and 40 of the Criminal Code. He was inops consilii 2. The prosecution’s case is primarily based on the defence statement of the accused. 3. Witness no.1 stated under oath that on the 9 th December 2022 at 15h58, the accused was duly cautioned and explained of his constitutional rights at the police station of La Gaulette where he voluntarily gave and signed his defence statement. The said statement was identified, read out and produced in court and was marked Doc A. 4. Witness no.1 was not cross-examined. 5. The prosecutor tendered witness no.2 for cross-examination. When accused put to witness no.2 that he proved to her that he did not do that case, witness no.2 replied in the negative and that she doubted the accused. 6. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused deposed under oath and denied that he ever gave that statement. In cross-examination, he agreed that the statement read in court was well his statement and that he signed on both pages of that statement. However, he stated that he was beaten up at the police station to confess this case. 7. Although the accused raised serious allegations against the police, the court notes that when he got the opportunity to confront the main prosecution witness with these allegations, he failed to do so. He preferred to wait at the eleventh hour to raise such point which has remained unfounded inasmuch as this allegation of police brutality has

remained vague. No detail has been provided as to when, if any, this happened and by whom. The court considers that no weight should be attached to the accused’s deposition under oath. 8. As the confession has not been challenged nor did the accused adduce other incompatible evidence with the confession, this court considers it safe to rely on such confession. I reiterate the principle that “a voluntary confession by an accused party that was direct and positive and had been satisfactorily proved was the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against the accused” [vide DPP v Aumont 1989 SCJ 338]. 9. I find accused guilty as charged under count 1. The alternate count 2 is thus dismissed.

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