Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 mars 2026, 2026 INT 69 – Police v Shayntish Appadoo

1

Police v Shayntish Appadoo

2026 INT 69

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division) Cause number: 98/2021

In the matter of: – Police

v/s

Shayntish APPADOO

JUDGMENT

1. Accused, stands charged under the offence of wounds and blows causing death without intention to kill in breach of section 228(1) & (3) of the Criminal Code.

2. It is mentioned in the information that on or about the 12 th day of March in the year 2018 at Beau Vallon Mahebourg, Accused, a police constable, did wilfully and unlawfully inflict wounds and blows upon the person of one Santa Rao Appadu, without intention to kill but the said wounds and blows so wilfully inflicted had nevertheless caused the death of the said Santa Rao Appadu.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was represented by counsel at Trial.

Evidence led by the prosecution

4. It is not in dispute that late Mr Santa Rao Appadu (“Deceased”) passed away on 13 March 2018 at 0320 hours 1 . According to the Medico Legal Report dated 25 October 2018 2 , he died due to “Craniocerebral injuries” and bore external injuries on various parts of his body. It is also not in dispute that according to the Forensic Examination Report dated 28 October 2019 3 , Deceased had 25 milligrams of Alcohol per 100 millilitres of his blood.

5. The forensic examination exhibit report dated 01 October 2018 4 , shows that clothes of Deceased and Accused were examined to detect the presence of blood and its possible source. It also mentions that on 20 March 2018, a DNA sample was taken from Accused. Following examination of the said exhibits,(i) no DNA or hair was retrieved from same and (ii) the said exhibits were tested negative for blood.

6. The Forensic examination scene report dated 01 October 2018 5 shows that following the examination of the roof of Deceased house, no blood stain, no hair/fibre was retrieved from same.

7. CI Goolaup (“Witness No 6”) one of the enquiring officers in this case, confirmed that Accused and Deceased are relatives and the key witness for the prosecution in this matter is one Favory (“Witness No 13”), who stated during the enquiry that he was present at the time of the incident.

8. SI Digumber (“Witness No 8”), confirmed in evidence that there are no DNA results that connects Accused with Deceased and at no point in time did the police officers posted at Mahebourg police station make any entry to describe the clothes allegedly worn by Accused on the material date.

1 Document AA. 2 Document AE. 3 Document AB 4 Document AC 5 Document AD

9. Mrs Polamah Appadu (“Witness No 12”), the wife of Deceased testified that at the material time, they were living at Beau Vallon in a house found near the main road. She could not say what happened to Deceased but recalled that on that day which was an independence day, Deceased was on sitting on top of the roof of their house and she was watching TV inside. She was about to close the window when two persons unknown to her came and stated “sa garcon la ine batte ou missier” , meaning Accused. She was scared and the said persons accompanied her on the roof, she also called her elder son and saw her husband lying down thereat. It was then about 9pm. Prior to that she saw Accused by 8 to 9 pm, he was jumping across her house and came down. She only saw Accused jumping over the roof and she did not see other persons apart the latter. She then clarified that in fact after she had closed the window that she saw Accused jumping from the roof. she also heard a discussion and after that those two persons stated to her “madam sa missier in bez embas la haut.” She could not say why Accused was jumping from the roof of her house, and could not say what had happened then. It was her elder son who went on the roof and then called the police. Accused is her brother`s grand child and at that time they were not in good terms. Deceased had issues with Accused in the past as Accused used create disturbances and would not stop even when called upon to do so. Accused also used to provoke her husband.

10. In cross examination, she stated that on that day, she met with Accused who was not in his police uniform. Accused greeted him and said to Accused “faire bon garcon”. She confirmed that for one year prior to the incident Deceased used to put rocks on a road which is by her house. She disagreed that on that day, Deceased threw rocks on Accused. Accused then told her to open the gate, she refused by saying to Accused “guet to zaffaire”. In fact, Accused was pulling the gate, she did not want to open the gate as Accused never told her what Deceased was doing. She did not hear any discussion between Accused and Deceased.

11. Witness No 13 did not testify for the prosecution. He was recurrently absent despite warned to attend court and following a ruling of this court, on his recurrent absences, the prosecution closed its case.

The case for the Defence

12. Accused did not adduce any evidence but stated from the dock that he is innocent in this matter, has cooperated with the police and was always present in court. Accused gave five statements in defence in relation to this case 6 .

13. The main factual contentions in his defence are contained in Documents AN and AN 2. In Document AN, Accused explained that he owns a property through his mother at Beau Vallon which is at the rear where Deceased property is situated. Deceased who is related to him, used to protest and cause obstructions when he had to access his property. In fact, Deceased was not agreeable that Accused uses a common road nearby to access his property.

14. On 12 March 2018, in the afternoon by 1630 hours, after work, he proceeded to Beau Vallon. He entered the said common road with his car and thereat met with Deceased wife whom he called “Babam” . After a short conversation with the latter, he went further down that road and by 1710 hours, he took his fiancée and his brother in law to proceed to Mahebourg Waterfront. His cousin Prisheta, did not join them as she had some work to do at home. He reached the Waterfront at about 1730 hours. He clarified that before going to the Waterfront, he went with his cousin Shainish and his father Sailen to Save Mart Mahebourg for shopping and then by 1700 hours, dropped Sailen back to Beau Vallon. Then he went to the Waterfront with his cousin,his fiancée and his brother in law. At 1830 hours, his cousin Prisheta called asking him to come back to Beau Vallon to buy food for her.

15. Accused went on to narrate in Document AN 1 that reaching at Beau Vallon, he parked his car by the said common road and hooted to inform his cousin of his

6 Documents AN, AN1 to AN4

arrival. After some time, he decided to meet his cousin, he dismounted from the car, walked along the common road and on his way, he saw Deceased on the roof of his house. Deceased swore at him, insulted him and his family and told him that he had no right to use that road. Deceased also threw a stone towards him which he managed to dodge and even threatened to kill him. At that point in time, his cousin Preshita was coming, he told Deceased that by throwing stones, he could injure anyone including Preshita. Deceased ignored his words of caution, even swore at Preshita and took another stone which was on the roof to throw in his direction. He again warned Deceased but the latter ignored him, swore at him again and threatened to damage his car. He continued to caution Deceased and in doing so, he stood on a wall near the terrace of Deceased house. Deceased did not stop swearing. Due to the fact that many persons had gathered on spot, he left with his cousin in his car and headed to the Waterfront.

16. At about 8 pm, he came back on spot with his cousins, brother in law and fiancée, they walked along that common road as they had to proceed to his uncle named Sailen. On his way, he met with Deceased`s son ( Venoo Rao Appadu), the latter was speaking loudly and swearing at him, he did not react and proceeded to his uncle`s place. Ten minutes later, when they were all coming back, he again met with Deceased`s son on the way. Deceased son told him “to ene grand pilon a cause toi, SAMU p bizin vine prend mor Pa”. He told Deceased`s son that he is being threatened and would have to report the matter to the police. He thus went to Mahebourg police station with his cousins, brother in law and fiancée ( they were five in all). Thereat, he entered alone inside the police station and stated to the police officers that he came to lodge a declaration against Deceased.

17. At that point in time, it was about 2030 hours when police officers held and handcuffed him as he was speaking in a loud tone. He was brought in an office at the rear of the police station and after one hour, one Sergeant Bundhoo and Inspector Pierre told him that they went on spot at Beau Vallon and they were told by Deceased wife that it was Deceased who was picking fights with him. Therefore, they released him and he also told them that he would not level any

declaration being given that they had already been on spot. He sustained a few injuries on his arms when the police held and handcuffed him but being given that the police officers were his colleagues, he opted not to complain.

18. After that, he left the police station with the others and went for dinner in a restaurant at Blue Bay. After dinner, at about 1030 to 1100 hours, he went to the beach for about half and hour. Thereafter, he dropped his cousins at Beau Vallon and then went home with his fiancée and his brother in law. On the next day that is on 13 March 2020, in the morning he was called to attend CID Mahebourg for enquiry. It was later during the day that he became aware through his mother that Deceased passed away.

19. In Document AN3, he denied when the version of Witness No.12 was put to him to the effect that on that day at 1930 hours after hearing noises and rows outside, she looked through a window and saw Accused arguing and swearing at her husband. Accused even tried to pull the gate to access the house but could not open the door as it was locked. Accused then climbed over the wall, accessed the roof and after some time, Accused left and the noise had stopped. At the same time, an unknown person came to see her and said that Accused had assaulted her husband and the latter fell on the roof.

20. Accused also denied the version of Witness 13 who allegedly saw him assaulting Deceased on the roof.

Submissions

21. Learned Counsel for the prosecution submitted that Witness No. 12 saw Accused coming from the roof where Deceased was. She also stated that at the material time, there was only Accused and Deceased. Since there was bad blood between Accused and Deceased, Accused had the required mens rea to inflict wounds and blows on Deceased and thus irresistible inference can be drawn from the evidence of Witness No 12. He submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

22. Learned Defence counsel submitted that there is no evidence that Accused committed the offence for which he stands charged or even assaulted Deceased. The existence of bad blood between Accused and Deceased is a fact which is accepted by Accused himself in his statements and furthermore Witness No.12 did not, in evidence, enlighten the court as to the injuries sustained by Deceased as this could have happened before, since evidence on record shows that Deceased had alcohol in his blood. There is no evidence of any DNA of Accused on Deceased and in the absence of Witness No. 13, who is a material witness for the prosecution, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence on record only shows that Accused was present thereat but does not establish that Accused committed the offence. Accused was also accompanied by his cousin and the latter was not called by the prosecution to enlighten the court as to the occurrence of the events on that day.

Analysis

23. I have duly considered the whole evidence on record and the submissions of counsel on both sides.

24. Witness No.13 the sole material witness for the prosecution, for the reasons stated above, did not testify.

25. Concerning the testimony of Witness No.12, it is on record that in her version which was put to Accused in Document AN3, she stated that at 1930 hours, she heard rows and discussions outside. In evidence, she stated that she saw Accused jumping from the roof and heard a discussion but then changed her version by stating that she did not hear any discussions. In examination in chief, she stated that when she was about to close the window, two persons who were unknown to her approached and said “sa garcon la ine batte ou missier.” Thereafter, she gave another version on that score and stated that those two unknown persons uttered to her “madame sa missier la in bez embas la haut.” It is worth noting as well that in her version given to the police, Witness No.12 stated that there was only one person who stated to her that her husband has been assaulted. In her version in Document AN3, Witness No. 12 stated that

Accused tried to access her house by pulling the door but he could not do so as the door was locked. The said door was even shown by her to the police in the course of the enquiry 7 . However, in examination chief, she made no mention at all about the said door but when questioned by Accused in cross examination, she stated that in fact Accused was pulling the gate. In her version that was put to Accused in Document AN3, Witness No.12 stated that she saw Accused arguing with Deceased who was on the roof. Accused tried to pull the door of her house to access the roof but same was locked, It was then that Accused jumped over a wall to access the roof and after some time, Accused dismounted from the roof and she did not hear any noise. In evidence, she gave a different account as to when she saw Accused jumping from the roof. She stated that it was when she was closing the window that she saw Accused coming from the roof and it was then that she heard a discussion. She went on to specify that when she saw Accused jumping from the roof she was not aware what happened then.

26. In light of the above, I am of the view that the evidence of Witness No. 12 is riddled with several contradictions on material aspects as to the occurrence of the events. It is also unclear from her testimony as to what point in time Accused allegedly climbed over the wall to access the roof and thereafter came down. Not only the abovementioned inconsistencies materially impeach the credibility and overall truthfulness of the version of Witness No. 12, vide Curpen v The State [2010 SCJ 105], but a close scrutiny of her evidence also shows that apart from allegedly seeing Accused jumping over the wall and coming down, she did not see anything more and could not even say what happened on the roof.

27. Learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that due to the existence of bad blood between the parties, Accused had the required mens rea of inflicting wound and blows on Deceased. It is not disputed that there was bad blood between Accused and Deceased and this is also evident from the testimony of Witness No 12 who stated that Accused used to provoke Deceased and she

7 Document AJ4

even conceded in cross examination that in the past, Deceased used to put rocks on the common road. However it is equally true in my view that due to the prevalence of bad blood between Accused and Deceased, the possibility that Witness No 12 driven by improper motives or with a view to settle cores could have made false assertions against Accused by portraying him as the perpetrator of the offence, cannot be discarded.

28. It was also submitted that the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Now, it has been said that circumstantial evidence “works by cumulatively, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities” (DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729). Furthermore, circumstantial evidence was also explained in Pollock C. B. in Regina v Exall and Others (1866) 176 ER 850 notably by analogy to a rope composed of several cords: “One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength… Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.”

29. However, in this case it is unclear under what circumstantial evidence is the prosecution relying to establish its case against Accused. The DNA of Accused was not found on the roof (the scene of crime) and neither on the clothes or body of Deceased. In the same vein, traces of blood of Deceased were not found on the clothes of Accused. Accused was bore injuries on his arms but gave an explanation as to how he sustained same and those explanations were not disproved by the prosecution. Although the evidence on record shows that Deceased was severely assaulted and sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body such as ( “broken right upper incisor and left canine, Haematoma over interior surface of left cheek, Haematoma over left side face having linear bruise 3 cm in length, linear bruise 6cm in length just over temporomandibular joint, bruise 3×4 cm just over armpit right side, brise 3×2 cm over left armpit, superficial laceration 0.5cm long over left right finger, linear

bruise 6×2 cm over right side of chest, rectangular abrasion 4×6 cm over mid sternum, bruising of intercostal muscles mid sternum,”) 8 , I am of the view that same falls short in establishing either directly or circumstantially that there was any sort physical contact between Accused and Deceased on the material day.

30. Therefore, in light of the above, it is unclear in my view which combination or cumulation of circumstantial evidence in the present matter that is, which strands of evidence when taken together could lead one to draw the conclusive inference that Accused, following a discussion with Deceased on the material day and time, climbed on the roof, severely assaulted Deceased who as a consequence of same, passed away.

31. The evidence which is being essentially relied upon by the prosecution is that of Witness No. 12 which, as already stated is not credible, is unreliable and tainted due to bad blood and this evidence even if it were to be accepted, only shows that Accused climbed and then descended from the roof.

Conclusion

32. For all the above reasons, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore grant Accused the benefit of doubt and dismiss the information against him.

P. Balluck (Mr) Magistrate Intermediate Court

30 March 2026

8 Pages 1 and 2 of Document AE