Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 février 2020, 2020 PL2 30 – Pce v Paraouty

P a g e | 1

Pce v Paraouty

2020 PL2 30

POLICE v PAROUTY Mohamed Reza

CN:7718/19 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V PAROUTY Mohamed Reza

JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offence of Insult in breach of section 296 (b) of the Criminal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was not represented at trial stage. Prosecution called witness no.1, CPL Samsanrooah who read and produced defence statement of accused, marked as Doc A. Prosecution then called witness no.2, Mr Hamza Foondun, who related that on 17/08/18 at 14.40 hrs, the accused asked the complainant to move his vehicle. Whilst the complainant was on the phone, the accused insulted him. He felt demeaned. The witness was cross-examined. Prosecution then closed its case.

P a g e | 2

The accused was informed of his Constitutional rights and elected to testify under oath. The accused maintained the content of his statement and explained that he is a religious person. The accused was duly cross-examined.

The case was then closed for the Defence. The Court analysed the evidence on record with attention.

The case of Carpen v. The State (2010) SCJ 105 quoted with approval the case of Morel v. Couve (1912) MR 78, in which it was stated that the mens rea of the present offence is presumed in the content of the injurious expressions per se «jusqu’à ce que l’auteur du propos eût prouvé qu’il ne voulait pas injurier la personne à laquelle il l’a adressée»

This is what « Encyclopédie Dalloz Penal Verbo Injure » has to say on the subject:

Note 27 «Constitue une injure, l'expression par elle-même outrageante comportant une intention perfide et un dessein de malveillance: »

The complainant gave a version which was similar to what has been couched in the information.

The Court notes that the complainant seems to have an axe to grind with the accused. There is clearly bad blood between both parties. The complainant stated what happened but could not state the insulting words stated to him in an accurate or resembling manner. However, globally, the Court is of the view that given the present charge is based solely on the testimony of the complainant, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on this basis.

The Court finds that the shadow of a doubt has been cast over the testimony of the complainant.

Accordingly, given the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court dismisses the case.

P a g e | 3

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut (District Magistrate) Delivered on 07 February 2020