Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 mars 2026, 2026 INT 70 – Police v Sookur and Ors

1

Police v Sookur and Ors

2026 INT 70

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division) Cause number: 331/2022

In the matter of: – Police

v/s

1. Yogesh SOOKUR 2. Muslim ASSENALLY 3. Augustin GUILLAUME 4. Akshai Kumar RAMSURROOP 5. Kemal ASSENALLY 6. Georges Harold MARIE

JUDGEMENT

The charges

1. Accused Nos 1 to 5 stand charged for the following offences-

Larceny made by more than two individuals in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Counts 1,5,9,13 and 15)

Possession of property obtained unlawfully in breach of sections 40, 301(1) and 305(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Alternate Counts 2,6,10,14 and 16)

Ilegal Trafficking in stolen goods in breach of section 40A of the Criminal Code (Counts 3,7,11 and 17)

2. Accused No 6, on his part, stands charged for the offence of Possession of property obtained unlawfully in breach of sections 40, 301(1) and 305(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Main Counts 4,8,12 and 18).

The information

3. Concerning Accused Nos 1-5, it is averred in the information that-

Count 1: on or about 13 th day of October 2021, at Fond du Sac, in the district of Pamplemousses, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did whilst being more than two individuals, wilfully and fraudulently abstract certain articles not belonging to them, to wit: a pair of excavator chain wheel.

Count 2:Alternatively, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No4 and Accused No.5 were wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in their possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime to wit: a pair of excavator chain wheel, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 3: On or about the date aforesaid, at Tombeau Bay, in the aforesaid district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did wilfully and unlawfully sell stolen goods to wit: a pair of excavator chain wheel for the sum of Rs 3000/-, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals.

Count 5: on or about 14 th day of October 2021, at Lower Vale, in the district of Pamplemousses, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did whilst being more than two individuals, wilfully and fraudulently abstract certain articles not belonging to them, to wit: twelve feet excavator chain wheel.

Count 6: Alternatively, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No4 and Accused No.5 were wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in their possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime to wit: twelve feet of excavator chain wheel, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun

Count 7: On or about the date aforesaid, at Tombeau Bay, in the aforesaid district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did wilfully and unlawfully sell stolen goods to wit: three feet of

excavator chain wheel for the sum of Rs 15000/-, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals.

Count 9: in between the14 th day of October 2021 and 15 th October 2021, at Lower Vale, in the district of Pamplemousses, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did whilst being more than two individuals, wilfully and fraudulently abstract certain articles not belonging to them, to wit: two lorries’ engines and its diesel. (emphasis added)

Count 10:Alternatively, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No4 and Accused No.5 were wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in their possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime to wit: two lorries engines and (2) diesel abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 11: On a day in the month of October 2021, at Tombeau Bay, in the aforesaid district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did wilfully and unlawfully sell stolen goods to wit: one lorry engine for the sum of Rs 2700/-, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals.

Count 13: in between the15 th day of October 2021 and 17 th October 2021, at Rouge Terre Fond du Sac, in the aforesaid district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did whilst being more than two individuals, wilfully and fraudulently abstract certain articles not belonging to them, to wit: (1) thirty scrap metal plates,(2) one metal sheet and (3) five metal pipes.

Count 14:Alternatively, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No4 and Accused No.5 were wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in their possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime to wit: (1) thirty scrap metal plates,(2) one metal sheet and (3) five metal pipes abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 15: On or about the17 th day of October 2021 at Lower Vale, in the said district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did whilst being more than two individuals, wilfully and fraudulently abstract certain articles not belonging to them, to wit: (1) one excavator bucket and (2) 500 litres of diesel oil. (emphasis added)

Count 16:Alternatively, on or about the date and at the place aforesaid, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No4 and Accused No.5 were wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in their possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime to wit: one excavator bucket and (2) 500 litres of diesel oil abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 17: On or about the date aforesaid , at Tombeau Bay, in the aforesaid district, Accused No.1, Accused No.2, Accused No.3, Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 did wilfully and unlawfully sell stolen goods to wit: one excavator bucket for the sum of Rs 4000/-, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals.

4. For Accused No. 6, the following is averred in the information-

Count 4: On or about the date and the place aforesaid, Accused No. 6 was wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in his possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime, to wit: a pair of excavator chain wheel, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 8: On or about the date and the place aforesaid, Accused No. 6 was wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in his possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime, to wit: three feet of excavator chain wheel, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun

Count 12: on a day in the month of October 2021, at Tombeau Bay, Accused No. 6 was wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in his possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime, to wit: one lorry engine abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun.

Count 18: on or about, at Tombeau Bay, in the aforesaid district, Accused No. 6 was wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification to have found in his possession certain articles, which had been abstracted by means of a crime, to wit: one excavator bucket, abstracted by means of larceny made by more than two individuals to the prejudice of Mr Preetanand Obhymaun

The Plea

5. Accused No. 1 pleaded guilty to Counts 1,3,5,9,15 and 17 (Counts 2,6,10 and 16 were dismissed against him as alternate Counts). Accused No.1 pleaded not guilty to Counts 7,11,13 and 14.

6. Accused No.2 pleaded guilty to Counts 9 and 11(Count 10 was dismissed against him as alternate Count). Accused No.2 pleaded not guilty to Counts 1,2,3,5,6,7,13,14,15,16 and 17.

7. Accused No.4 pleaded guilty to Counts 1.3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17, (Counts 2,6,10,14 and 16 were dismissed against him as alternate Counts).

8. Accused No.5 pleaded guilty to Counts 9 and 11(Count 10 was dismissed against him as alternate Count). Accused No.5 pleaded not guilty to Counts 1,2,3,5,6,7,13,14,15,16 and 17.

9. Accused No.6 pleaded not guilty to Counts 4,8,12 and 18.

The evidence on record

10. Mr Preetanand Obhymaun (“Complainant”) testified and stated that he is a contractor at Basalt. He has the owner of bare lands at various places where rocks are removed. He gave three declarations to the police concerning larcenies that occurred on those lands. In his first declaration, he stated that the larceny occurred at Fond du Sac where an excavator chain and a twelve feet excavator chain valued at Rs 330,000/- belonging to him were stolen. The said site was not barricaded and he did not suspect anyone who could have committed same. In his second declaration, he made mention of a site found at Lower Vale where 2 engines and diesel, 30 scrap metal plates, metal steel and 5 metal pipes were stolen. Those items belonged to him and were valued at Rs 77,000/- The items were not recovered and that site also was not barricaded. On the last declaration, he again referred to a site at Lower Vale where a bucket excavator and 1500 Litres of Diesel worth Rs 230,000 belonging to him were stolen. The site was not barricaded and he did not suspect anyone. In cross examination he stated that he had receipts confirming the amount of diesel that was kept on site but conceded that he did not produce same to the police during the enquiry. He confirmed that the stolen items belong to him. He supervises the sites and the machines are run by operators. According to him, the operators could not have used 500 litres of diesel straightaway as there were machines which also were not operational. He explained that he also lost two engine lorries but agreed that he has no

receipts for the excavator chains and spare parts. He emphasised that the site at Lower Vale is equipped with CCTV camera and same was shown to CID personnel.

11. PC Boodhun (“Witness No. 8”), gave evidence that on 21 October 2021 following certain information, three cases were reported where Diesel, chains and other items were stolen. He obtained information about the perpetrators of these cases and mounted an operation to proceed to Baie du Tombeau at the house of Accused No. 2. Thereat, he met with Accused Nos 4 and 5 and after, Accused Nos 2,4 and 5 were questioned about the said cases, they confessed to same and even revealed the names of their confederates. Accused No.2 even indicated to the police the location of the house of Accused No.1. The police then proceeded to the house of Accused No.1 and after a search, they found him hiding inside. Accused No 1 also confessed having committed the said cases upon being questioned by the police. After the arrest of Accused No 5, the police also proceeded to the place of Accused No.6 where a bucket and a container were recovered. All Accused parties confessed the case and cooperated with the police. However, he conceded that he did not record those confessions in verbatim.

12. Accused No. 1 did not adduce any evidence. He gave 5 statements to the police (“Document A, A1, A2, A3 and A4”). In his defence statements which were not challenged by him, he confessed to Counts 1,3,5,9,15 and 17 (Counts where he had already pleaded guilty. He had also confessed to Counts 7 and 11 1 (Counts which he had pleaded not guilty). However, he had not confessed to Counts 13 and 14. It is observed that in his confession statement with regard to Count 15 2 , Accused No.1 confessed having stolen one excavator bucket only and not 500 Lites of Diesel. Similarly under Count 9, (save for the two lorry engines) he denied having stolen any diesel.

13. Accused No.2 adduced evidence. He agreed that he committed the offences under Counts 1,3,5 and concerning Count 9, he stated that he stole only one engine which was already in parts but same did not contain any diesel. He agreed having committed Counts 7,11 and 15. On Count 15, he stated that he only stole one excavator bucket but not the diesel. He denied having committed Count 13. He also stated in cross examination that the stolen items were sold to Accused No. 6. Although in his statements to the police, he stated that Accused No. 6 was aware that the items were stolen ones, in court, he retracted by stating that Accused No. 6 was in fact not aware because in fact, he told Accused No.6 that he picked up those items in the woods. He went on

1 Documents A1 and A3 2 Document A

to state that his averments concerning Accused No.6 in his statements are not correct.

14. Accused No.2 gave four statements to the police (Documents D, D1, D2 ,D3 and D4). In those defence statements which were not challenged by him, Accused No.2 confessed to Counts 9 and 11 3 , but stated therein that he stole only one engine with its support rather than two engines with its diesel. He also confessed to Counts 1,2,3,5,6,7,15,16 and 17 4 (Counts which he pleaded not guilty) but on Count 15, denied having stolen 500 litres of diesel. It is noted that there are no confessions on his part concerning Counts 13 and 14.

15. Accused No.4 did not adduce any evidence. He gave three statements to the police (Documents C,C1 and C2). In those statements he had confessed to Counts 1,3,5,7,9,11,15 and 17. However concerning Count 9, he stated that he stole only one engine with its support without any diesel. He denied having committed Count 13 5 although he had pleaded guilty to same and under Count 15, he confessed having stolen the excavator bucket but not the 500 litres of Diesel oil.

16. Accused No.5 testified. He stated that concerning Counts 1,2,3 and 5, prior to him going on site, he was at Baie du Tombeau with other persons when they met with Accused No.1 who was looking for a vehicle to carry scrap metals. He agreed to be paid Rs 800/-. He emphasised that there are items which he stole but some he did not. Concerning the excavator chain, he stated that same was in parts and measured 3 meters. He went on to state that under Count 9, he stole only one engine but not any diesel. He denied having committed Count 13 and never sold the stolen articles to Accused No.6. He denied having committed Counts 3,7,11 and 17.

17. Accused No.5 gave three statements to the police (Documents E,E1 and E2). Accused No.5 confessed to Counts 9 and 11 6 and to Counts 15 and 17 7 (he pleaded not guilty to Counts 15,16 and 17). In his confession to Count 15, he stated that he stole only the excavator bucket and not the 500 litres of Diesel oil. So far Counts 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 are concerned, (to which he pleaded not guilty)Accused No.5 stated in Document E that prior to him going on site, on 13/10/2021, he was at Baie du Tombeau with other Accused parties when approached by Accused No.1 who was looking for a vehicle to carry scrap metals, he was informed by the latter that there would not be any problems and he would be paid Rs 800/-. Whilst he expressed remorse therein, he

3 Document D4 4 Documents D,D2 and D3 5 See Document C1 6 Document E1 7 Document E2

stated that he was not aware that same were stolen items. However in Document E1, he did not deny that some time in October 2021 when he was with other Accused parties, he was approached by Accused No.1 for a “tracement pou all faire dans Vale”. He did not confess to Count 13 and 14.

18. Accused No.6 adduced evidence and stated that he is a dealer in scrap metals. In his statement given to the police on 26/10/21, he denied the allegations against him and the charge, but in two statements that followed, he agreed that he had purchased stolen items. He stated that the contents of those statements are not correct and he denies them. Furthermore, the contents of those two statements contradicts the first one. He maintained that he was not aware that the items sold to him were stolen. The items sold to him were in very bad state and could not be used. He was never told that those were stolen items and thus does not agree with the contents of the two statements. He does not know how to read and write and never read those statements.

19. In cross examination, he stated that he usually acquires old or scrap metals and old spare parts including JCB spare parts like in the present case. He is a dealer in scrap metals for the past 10 years. He could not be sure on what he based himself to say that all those metals were not in good conditions. He stated that some were in good conditions whilst others were not. He conceded having acquired one engine for lorry, twelve feet excavator chain wheel, three feet excavator chain wheel and one excavator bucket from the same person. He did not suspect same to be stolen items as they were in a deplorable state. He conceded that he did not enquire as to the provenance of those items that were sold to him. He was told by the seller that same were not stolen items but since he did not believe, he caused the items to be examined by his wife and other colleagues. He stated that he based himself on the views on those who advised him and took a decision to acquire the said items.

20. Accused No.6 gave three statements to the police, (Documents B,B1 and B2), in Document B, which concerned Count 18, he stated that when Accused No.2 sold the excavator bucket to him, the latter said “pas gagne tracas ou”. He also stated therein that he knows that Accused No.2 is not a dealer in JCB spare parts, not an owner of any JCB and that the exacavator bucket is worth more than Rs 4000/- which is not sold everywhere. In Document B1, Accused No.6 confessed to Count 4 and 8 and in Document B2, Accused No.6 had confessed to Counts 12.

Analysis and Findings

21. I have duly considered the whole evidence on record and the submissions of learned counsel for Accused No. 2,5 and 6.

Accused No. 1

22. After having considered the guilty plea of Accused No.1 under Counts 1, 3,5,9,15 and 17 and that he had voluntarily confessed to these offences in his defence statements 8 , I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under those counts. Concerning Counts 7 and 11, where Accused No.1 has pleaded not guilty, I find that the unchallenged, clear and direct voluntary confession made by Accused No.1 to those Counts

is the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against him, vide DPP v Aumont J. P. [1989 SCJ 338]. Hence, I am also of the view that there is no evidence on record which could be said to be incompatible or contradictory to the confession made by Accused No. 1 on the truthfulness of Documents A1 and A3 that could adversely affect the weight to be attributed to that confession, vide Carosin v the Queen [1959 MR 1]. I therefore find that the evidence adduced by prosecution satisfies the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt also under Count 7 and 11.

23. Concerning Counts 9 and Count 15, I find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is limited to establishing respectively that Accused No.1 stole the two lorry engines and not the diesel and stole only one excavator bucket and not 500 Lites of Diesel.

24. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution on Counts 13 and 14 to which Accused No.1 had pleaded not guilty. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused No.1 under those Counts.

Accused No.2

25. Accused No.2 had pleaded guilty to Counts 9 and 11. By virtue of his guilty plea under those Counts, with the fact that he had voluntarily confessed to same in his defence statements 10 and taking into account his evidence in court where he accepted having committed Counts 9 and 11, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under those counts.

8 Documents A, A1 and A3 9 Documents A1 and A3 10 Document D4

26. Although Accused No.2 pleaded not guilty under Counts 1,2,3,5,6,7,13,14,15,16 and 17, in his statements given to the police he had clearly confessed to Counts 1,3,5,7,15 and 17 11 , those confessions were not challenged by him and in addition to that, he accepted whilst giving evidence in court, having committed the offences under Counts 1.3,5,7,11 and 15. After due consideration of the evidence on record including that adduced by the prosecution under Counts 1,3,5,7,15 and 17, (the unambiguous and unchallenged confession statements of Accused No.2), I find that the prosecution has been able to establish the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt also under the said Counts.

27. Concerning Counts 9 and Count 15, I find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is limited to establishing respectively that Accused No.2 stole only one lorry engine rather than the two lorry engines with its diesel and stole only one excavator bucket and not 500 Lites of Diesel.

28. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution on Counts 13 and 14 to which Accused No.2 had also pleaded not guilty. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused No.2 under those Counts.

Accused No.4

29. Accused No.4 pleaded guilty to Counts 1.3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17. After considering his guilty plea to the information, the facts and circumstances of the case as established by the prosecution via his unchallenged statements to the police where he confessed to the said offences 12 , the whole evidence on record and by virtue of section 72(2) of the District and Intermediate Court ( Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt quad Accused No.4 concerning the above said Counts.

Accused No.5

30. Accused No.5 had pleaded guilty to Counts 9 and 11. By virtue of his guilty plea under those Counts, with the fact that he had voluntarily confessed to same in his defence statements 13 and taking into account his evidence in court where he accepted having committed Counts 9 and 11, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under those counts.

11 Documents D,D1 and D3 12 Documents C,C1 and C2 13 Document E1

31. Concerning Counts 1,2,3,5,6,7,13,14,15,16 and 17 where Accused No.5 has pleaded not guilty, a perusal of his evidence shows that he accepted having committed Count 1 and even stated that the excavator chains which were stolen by him were in pieces and measured three meters. He accepted having committed the offence under Count 9 but stated that he stole only one engine which was in two parts but did not steal any diesel. He denied having committed the offences under Counts 3, 7,11, 13 and 17. In cross examination, he agreed with the contents of the three statements given by him to the police, (Documents E-E2).

32. In Document E2, Accused No.5 has clearly confessed having committed the offences under Count 15 and 17, but stated under Count 15 that he stole only the excavator bucket and not the diesel. Now in Document E, Accused No.5 agreed that he went on the site with regards to Counts 1 and 5 to carry the excavator chains and stated that it was on request of Accused No 1 who told him “pas pou gagne problem”. He also stated that he was not aware that those were stolen articles. Accused No.5 contradicted himself whilst giving evidence by stating that the excavator chains were stolen by him. Therefore, his blunt contentions in Document E that he was not aware the chains were stolen when he went on site, are in my view not credible. I therefore find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Counts 1 and 5 quad him. In Document E, Accused No.5 stated that after each time they went on site to remove the excavator chains, they went to the place of Accused No.6 to Baie du Tombeau and sold same to him, he was given Rs 800/- on each occasion which he spent on “mange et boire”. I find from his own admissions in Document E which he confirmed to be correct that the excavator chains were brought by him and the other to the place of Accused No.6 and were sold to the latter. Hence, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on Counts 3 and 7.

33. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution on Counts 13 and 14 to which Accused No.5 had also pleaded not guilty. I therefore find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused No.5 under those Counts.

34. To sum up, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused No.5 under Counts 1,3,5,7,9,11,15 and 17. Under Count 9, evidence adduced by the prosecution was limited in establishing that Accused No.5 stole only one lorry engine and under Count 15, the evidence adduced by the prosecution only established that Accused No.5 stole one excavator bucket.

Accused No.6

35. The law on possession of stolen property has clearly been spelt out in the case of Prayag J.P.D v The State [2004 SCJ 29] and it was stated therein “Where the charge is “possession without sufficient excuse or justification”, once the prosecution has established the possession, the onus of proving that such possession is justified or sufficiently excused shifts on to the accused party : Vide Calteaux v The King [1909 MR 16], Toofany v The Queen [1957 MR 186], Wong Kwock Yow v R [1935 MR 171] and Seeneevassen v R [1974 MR 225]. Therefore, once possession of stolen property has been established, the next step for the Magistrate is to consider the explanation of the accused party and decide whether such explanation is acceptable. It is only then that the test laid down in Gobin v The Queen [1896 MR 45] may be applied i.e. “ Is the story of the possession a plausible, straightforward one, and one which he can believe? If he cannot believe it, the law, and not the Magistrate, says that the possessor of the property is guilty and is to be convicted.”

36. Accused No.6 does not dispute that the articles or items under Counts 4,8,12 and 18 were stolen. He does not deny that those articles were sold to him and that at a point in time, he was possession of same. The crux of his defence is that he was not aware that those were stolen articles. I do not subscribe to the views of defence counsel for Accused No.6 that in one statement, the police recorded the denial of Accused No.6 whereas in two other statements, the police recorded that Accused No.6 admitted the charge which is, according to him is contradicting.

37. A perusal of Document B which is the first statement given by Accused No.6 shows that same concerned only Count 18 and does not reveal a clear denial of the offence on behalf of Accused No.6. In essence, Accused No.6 stated that when he asked Accused No.2 as to the provenance of the said bucket, Accused No.2 merely replied “pas gagne tracas ou”. Accused No.6 reckoned in Document B that Accused No.2 was not the owner of a JCB machine, is not the owner of any shop dealing in JCB spare parts nor is he the operator of a JCB machine. Accused No.6 accepted in Document B that the value of the said item was more than Rs 4000 the price which was paid by him. In Document B1, Accused No.6 has clearly confessed to other counts that is Counts 4 and 8 and in Document B2, he had confessed to Count 12 and it is amply clear that Documents B1 and B2 are not concerned with Count 18.

38. Witness No.4 who recorded Document B1 from Accused No.6 maintained in cross examination that Accused No.6 agreed to the contents of his statements, voluntarily signed same and was duly informed of his rights. It is worth noting that it was never put to Witness No.4 in cross examination that Document B1 was never read to Accused No.6 who contended that

the said document was never read to him and he does not know how to read and write. Ps Asnayah (“Witness no.15”) who witnessed the recording of Document B2 disagreed that Accused No.6 was never informed of his right prior to his statement being recorded and that his version contained therein was not what he told the recording officer. Witness No.15 maintained that Document B2 was read over to Accused No.6.

39. After having duly considered the respective version of Witness No.4,15 and that of Accused No.6, I accept those of Witness 4 and 15 that Documents B1 and B2 were voluntarily given by Accused No.6 and his belated contentions that those statements were never read to him and same did not contain the version he told the police, is in my view clearly self-serving. There is also no evidence on record about complainants whatsoever to any authorities made by Accused No.6 concerning Documents B1 and B2 on his contentions. Furthermore, by his demeanour in court, he did not impress me as someone who is speaking the truth. He was thoughtful in his answers and evasive in cross examination.

40. His evidence also contains a number of disquieting features in that; he stated that he did not enquire as to the provenance of the articles but then contradicted himself by stating that he asked about the articles to those selling same to him. He was told by those who sold the articles to him that same were not stolen articles but he did not believe them. He stated that he did not suspect that the items sold to him were stolen ones as they were in a deplorable state but also stated that some metals were on good conditions whilst others were not.

41. Therefore after taking into consideration the whole evidence on record, I find that Accused No.6 has confessed to the offence under Counts 4,8 and 12 in Documents B1 and B2 , I find that the unchallenged, clear and direct voluntary confession made by Accused No.5 to those Counts is the best evidence that could be produced by the prosecution against him, vide DPP v Aumont J. P. [1989 SCJ 338]. Hence, I am also of the view that there is no evidence on record which could be said to be incompatible or contradictory to the confession made by Accused No. 5 on the truthfulness of Documents B1 and B2 that could adversely affect the weight to be attributed to that confession, vide Carosin v the Queen [1959 MR 1].

42. With regard to 18, being given the contradictory evidence of Accused No.6, his demeanour in court where he did not impress me as a truthful person and the fact that he himself stated in Document B which was not challenged by him that Accused No.2 was not the owner of a JCB

machine, was not the owner of any shop dealing in JCB spare parts nor is he the operator of a JCB machine and that the value of the said item was more than Rs 4000, his mere contentions that he was not aware that the excavator bucket was a stolen one is not credible and unworthy of belief.

43. I therefore find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under Count 4,8,12, and 18.

Conclusion

44. I find Accused No.1 guilty as charged under Counts 1,3,5,7,9-(of two lorry engines only),11,15-(of one excavator bucket only) and 17. In light of paragraph 24 above, Counts 13 and 14 are dismissed against him.

45. I find Accused No.2 guilty as charged under Counts 1,3,5,7,9-(of one lorry engine only) 11,15-( of one excavator bucket only) and 17. Counts 2, 6 and 16 are dismissed against him as alternate Counts. In light of paragraph 28 above, Counts 13 and 14 are dismissed against him.

46. I find Accused No.4 guilty as charged under Counts 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17.

47. I find Accused No.5 guilty as charged under Counts 1,3,5,7,9-(of one lorry engine only),11,15-(of one excavator bucket only) and 17. Counts 2, 6 and 16 are dismissed against him as alternate Counts. In light of paragraph 33 above, Counts 13 and 14 are dismissed against him.

48. I find Accused No.6 guilty as charged under Counts 4,8,12 and 18.

P. Balluck (Mr) Magistrate Intermediate Court

30 March 2026

15