Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 7 – Police v Lutchmun Jagun judgment 30. 09. 2019 assault

Police v Lutchmun Jagun judgment 30. 09. 2019 assault

2020 LPW 7

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

Cause Number 5821/19

In the matter of:

Police

v/s

Lutchman Jagun

JUDGMENT

The Accused stands charged with the offence of ASSAULT in breach of Section 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood inops consilii at trial stage. The Court proceedings were conducted in Creole language for the benefit of the Accused party.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Prosecution witness No.1, PC Taukoor explained that he met the Accused on 19 th

February 2019 at 10 00 hours at Boundary Western, Palma, Quatre Bornes and interviewed him after having informed him of the charge against him and his Constitutional Rights and after having invited him to give a defence statement. The prosecution witness stated that the Accused declined to give same and replied as follows:

“mo pas pou donne auken l’enquete. Mo pou dire tout dans la cour.”

The Accused elected not to cross examine the witness.

Prosecution Witness No.2, Mrs Reshma Bhuruth explained that she gave a declaration in the present case on 7 th June 2012 but no longer recalled what

occurred on that dy. After having been granted the permission by the court to refresh the memory of the main prosecution witness, the Declarant again stated that she still could not remember what occurred on that day. The witness stated that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment and has forgotten all. The case was then closed for the prosecution after the Accused elected not to cross examine the Complainant.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

After he was explained his Constitutional rights, the Accused elected to remain silent and not to adduce any evidence. The case was then closed for the Defence.

I have considered the evidence on record. I note further that the Accused has denied the charges levelled against him. I have further considered the fact that no Medical Examination Certificate (PF58) was produced by the Prosecution amounting to real evidence on record. The case for the prosecution rested mainly upon the version of the Complainant, Witness No.2 who could not recollect what occurred on the day in question and failed to testify against the Accused party.

For all of the above reasons I find that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused under the present information and I accordingly grant him the benefit of the doubt. I dismiss the case against the Accused.

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) District Magistrate This 30 th January 2020