Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 avril 2026, 2026 SAV 58 – POLICE v J M J VALOT

Page 1 POLICE v J M J VALOT

2026 SAV 58

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Cause No.: 1935/19 Police

v/s

Jean Michel Jonathan Valot

Judgment

The accused stands charged with the offence of « Breach of Protection From Domestic Violence Act » in breach of Sections 2 and 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. As per the information dated 3rd July 2019, the accused stands charged with having on or about the 12th February 2017, willfully and unlawfully committed an act of domestic violence, to wit: wilfully inflict blows upon the person of one Mrs Marie Kristel Carlec, his concubine.

The accused pleaded not guilty and was inops consilii. The case for the Prosecution was conducted by PS Mattan.

Case for the Prosecution

Three witnesses deponed on behalf of the Prosecution, namely ex-PS Ghoorah, the complainant Mrs M K Carlec and Dr A Peerally.

Witness no. 1, ex-PS Ghoorah, gave evidence to the effect that the accused had refused to record any out of court statement. He was not cross-examined.

Witness no. 2, Mrs M K Carlec, is the complainant and she gave evidence to the effect that the accused is her partner and on the material date, they had had an argument as she had reached home late. According to the complainant, the accused became angry

Page 2 and assaulted her on her face and on her head. She stated that the accused had dealt her with fisticuff blows.

The complainant was not cross-examined.

Witness no. 3, Dr A Peerally, gave evidence to the effect that on the 12th February 2017, he had examined the complainant and found that the latter bore an injury on her forehead on the right side. According to witness no. 3, the complainant had made an allegation of assault.

Witness no. 3 was not cross-examined.

Case for the Defence

The accused, from the dock, stated that he is not aware of what the complainant has stated.

The Law

Section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act defines acts of domestic violence as follows:

“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;

Page 3 (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;

Section 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act provides that:

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.

The accused in the present case has been charged with committing an act of domestic violence against his spouse. The term « spouse » is defined in Section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as follows:

“spouse” means a person who – (a) is or has been civilly or religiously married to a person of the opposite sex; (b) is living or has lived with a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife; or (c) whether living together or not with a person of the opposite sex, has a common child with that person;

Analysis

The presumption of innocence established by Section 10(2)(a) of the Constitution places a burden upon the Prosecution to prove each element of the offence with which the accused has been charged. In fact, the burden rests on the Prosecution to prove

Page 4 all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt 1 . When at the close of the case for the Prosecution, a prima facie case has been clearly established against the accused, the burden then shifts on him to satisfy the Court why it should not act on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution 2 .

It was therefore incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove that on the material date the complainant was the spouse of the accused and he committed an act of domestic violence against her in the manner as described in the information.

It has been established and it is not disputed that at the material time the accused and the complainant were partners. I therefore have no difficulty in finding that the complainant was the spouse of the accused.

The complainant was the main witness for the Prosecution and having had the opportunity of seeing her depone under oath, I have accordingly assessed her demeanour.

The complainant, I find, has been able to coherently answer questions put to her and depone in a clear and straightforward manner. Although she started off by stating that she does not wish to proceed with the present matter, the complainant was able to succinctly explain the reason for which an argument had arisen between the accused and her on the material date. In addition, despite having previously made a withdrawal statement under oath, the complainant has been able to clearly adduce evidence of the manner in which and the parts of her body on which she states she had been assaulted by the accused on the material date. The complainant has not been cross- examined and I find that her credibility has not been impeached in any manner. I have also not found her evidence to be inconsistent with that of witness no. 3 who had medically examined her following the incident. In the circumstances, I find no reason not to rely upon the complainant’s version.

As the accused has chosen not to depone under oath and expose himself to cross examination, I further consider that I am perfectly entitled to conclude that the Prosecution evidence has remained unrebutted 3 . In the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on the material date, the accused had committed an act

1 Boodhoo A. v The State [2004 SCJ 235] 2 Andoo M vs The Queen [1989 SCJ 257] 3 Andoo M vs The Queen [1989 SCJ 257]

Page 5 of domestic violence against the complainant by assaulting her on her face and on her head.

Conclusion

In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I consequently find the accused guilty as charged.

A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 7th April 2026