Supreme Court of Mauritius, 4 juin 2020, 2020 ROD 29 – POLICE V BEGUÉ ANICET

POLICE V BEGUÉ ANICET

2020 ROD 29

Cause No: 1677/2019 THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

ANICET BEGUÉ ———- JUDGMENT Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of domestic violence in breach of section 13(2) (a) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as amended by Act 10/2016. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel at trial. The trial. 2. The case for the prosecution is one where Accused assaulted his concubine, Karen Momus. 3. The prosecution opened its case by producing the medical certificate issued to Karen Momus. Police Constable St Pierre was then called by the prosecution and he testified that Accused declined to give a written statement in relation to the present case.

4. As regards to the declarant, Mrs. Momus, she never attended court to depone in the present case despite the fact that she was warned twice personally and the present matter was postponed thrice because of her absence. 5. For the defence, from the dock, Accused denied of having committed the present offence.

The legal framework. 6. Section 13 (2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act provides: Any person who does an act of domestic violence shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable — (a) on a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees; (b) on a second conviction, to a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; (c) on a third or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. 6. As regards to domestic violence, same is defined in section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act and provides: “domestic violence” includes any of the following acts committed by a person against his spouse, a child of his spouse or another person living under the same roof (a) willfully inflicting, or attempting to inflict, a wound or blow, or threatening to inflict a wound or blow; (b) willfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place, or threatening to place, the spouse or the other person in fear of physical injury to himself or to one of his children; (c) intimidating, harassing, stalking, ill-treating, insulting, brutality or cruelty;

(d) compelling the spouse or the other person by force or threat to engage in any conduct or act, sexual or otherwise, from which the spouse or the other person has the right to abstain; (e) confining or detaining the spouse or the other person, against his will; (f) harming, or threatening to harm, a child of the spouse; (g) causing or attempting to cause, or threatening to cause, damage to the spouse’s or the other person’s property; (h) depriving, without any reasonable excuse, the spouse of resources which the spouse is entitled to, or of payment for rent in respect of shared residence;

Assessments.

7. I have assessed all the evidence on record.

8. In the present matter, there is only the medical certificate issued to Karen Momus as evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove its case. However, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the declarant to support the medical certificate issued to her, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Accused who committed the present offence.

Conclusion.

9. For the reasons referred above, the case is dismissed against Accused.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 4 June 2020