Supreme Court of Mauritius, 31 mars 2026, 2026 LPW 9 – Police v Bradley Savathian & Ors

Page 1 of 4

Police v Bradley Savathian & Ors

2026 LPW 9

CN: 2938/23

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of –

Police

v/s

1. Bradley Savathian 2. Nicholas Savathian 3. Fabrice Savathian 4. Herve Savathian 5. Herve Ghessen Savathian 6. Mohammed Ahjee Adam Salman Khadaroo 7. Dylan Savathian 8. Saminaden Savathian

JUDGMENT

The charges

Accused Nos. 1 to 6 stand charged, under Count 1 of the Information, with having, on or about 27 March 2021, at Avenue Panchoo, Stanley, Rose Hill, unlawfully had upon them different instruments with the intent to commit a misdemeanour, in breach of section 28(1)(a) and (2) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act.

Accused Nos. 7 and 8 stand charged, under Count 2 of the Information, with having, in a public place, unlawfully made use of obscene words whether or not such words were addressed to any other person, in breach of section 28(1)(f) and (2) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act

All the accused parties pleaded not guilty to their respective charge and they were all legally represented for the trial.

The case for the Prosecution

The prosecution case relied, inter alia, on the testimonies of two witnesses.

Page 2 of 4

There being no objection on behalf of Learned Counsel appearing for the accused parties to that course of action, in the absence of the relevant officer, the Prosecutor informed the Court that, upon being approached to that effect during the enquiry, Accused No. 1 refused to provide any statement in writing in connection therewith. PS Hosseny (Witness 1) informed the Court that, he had approached Accused Nos. 2 to 8 during the course of the police enquiry into the present matter for the purposes of recording a statement in writing from each one of them in connection therewith. They all refused to provide such a statement.

Then came the turn of Mrs Manoda Goinden (Witness 5), the complainant in the present matter. She confirmed that on 30 March 2021 she had given statement in the present matter.

Witness 5 explained that, at the material time, she was living in concubinage with one Mr Mooroogen Deen. The latter had had an argument, in her presence, with one Mr Fabrice Savathian near a garage in Rose Hill. Following the dispute, she returned home at Avenue Panchoo in the company of her son who was then aged sixteen.

At some later point, she heard the members of the Savathian family in front of her gate. They were harbouring under the belief that her concubine was inside the house. They entered her yard and reached her terrace. When they could not get their hands on her concubine, they assaulted her minor son instead. They hit him with a helmet on his head and with the handle of a sabre.

She only realised that her son had been assaulted once the later entered the house. He had an injury at the right side of his forehead and bruises on his back. Witness 5 took her son to the hospital for treatment. The Savathian family also came to the hospital to create trouble whilst she was there with her son.

In Court, Witness 5 identified all the accused parties as being the very persons who assaulted her son on the material day and conceded that she could not remember anything said at the time as everything happened so quickly. She confirmed, however, not having said anything to them in reply.

Under cross-examination, Witness 5 stated that –

(a) she did not personally see her son getting assaulted;

(b) it was dark at the time but her terrace is lit with a light bulb which enabled her to see the accused parties;

(c) Accused No. 1 had a sabre and Accused No. 2 had a helmet;

Page 3 of 4

(d) the sabre is not mentioned in her statement to the police as that statement was not read over to her at the time of recording

(e) in addition to a black car that was mentioned in her statement, there were also a van and a green car present on the locus;

(f) she never mentioned any black car in her statement to the police; and

(g) the accused parties had brought a helmet in a car.

The case for the Defence

All eight accused parties elected to remain silent.

Analysis

I have considered the evidence on both sides.

This prosecution clearly cannot succeed.

I have had the opportunity to assess the demeanour of Witness 5 whilst she was giving evidence in Court and she did not strike me as being a reliable witness.

The charge proffered against Accused Nos. 1-6 under Count 1 of the Information alleges the possession of different instruments by each one of them. Yet, in Court, Witness 5 could only account for instruments being allegedly held by Accused Nos 1 and 2.

As for the charge proffered under Count 2 of the Information against Accused Nos. 7 and 8, Witness 5 conceded outright that she could not remember anything said during the alleged incident.

It would appear that, to the police, Witness 5 had mentioned a black car being present on the locus. In Court, however, she initially testified to the effect that, in addition to the black car, a van and a green car were also present there. Only seconds later, she then contradicted herself by asserting that she had never mentioned any black car to the police.

It would also appear that, to the police, no mention had been made by Witness 5 of any sabre being used on the day of the alleged incident. This material element (taking into account the charge being proffered under Count 1 of the Information) only sprung out of nowhere during the course of the trial.

As per her testimony, the other alleged implement used was a helmet. Taking the evidence of Witness 5 at its best (with the accused parties having apparently

Page 4 of 4

repaired to her house by means of a car and a van), it is difficult for me to accept that the accused parties would have brought a helmet together with them.

It is abundantly clear to me that Witness 5 has clearly not been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in Court and I cannot rely on her testimony to reach a conviction that would be safe.

I have also factored in the claim of Witness 5 to the effect that her son had allegedly witnessed the whole incident and been the victim of an alleged assault. It would appear that the concubine of Witness 5, one Mooroogen Deen, could also have enlightened the Court in the present matter. However, no such witness was called by the prosecution to buttress the version of Witness 5.

In the absence of such a witness and in the light of my other observations, there has been raised in my mind a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused parties and I grant them the benefit of that doubt.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above, given that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I dismiss the charges against the accused parties.

H. H. A. Rohamally Senior District Magistrate

31 March 2026