Supreme Court of Mauritius, 9 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 72 – Police v D Mungul & ors

Police v D Mungul & ors

2026 RDR 72

CN: 9112/2023

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

1. Deoprakash Mungul 2. Karamchand Mungul 3. Ameetah Mungul

JUDGMENT

All three Accused stand charged under count 1 for the offence of illtreating an elderly person, and Accused no. 1 stands charged under count 2 for the offence of damaging enclosure.

The offences were allegedly committed at Goodlands on 30.04.2023. All three Accused pleaded not guilty and were not assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

The case for Prosecution rests essentially on the testimony of witness no. 4, aged 73. It transpires from her testimony that the Accused parties pushed and hit her on the material date. A memory refreshing exercise was carried out. She confirmed that Accused no. 1 did hit her with a stick on the head and on the hip. She added that her head was swollen and she had a hip screw surgery. When asked about the involvement of witness no. 3, she initially stated that she intervened to stopped Accused no. 2 but confirmed that she did grab her hand to evict her from the house. She also confirmed that Accused no. 1 damaged her door and window panes, and pointed out that the panes are still broken. She went on to say that there is no reoccurrence, and all three Accused are now in good terms with her.

All three Accused were informed in Creole of their Constitutional rights to remain silent, to testify under solemn affirmation, to make a statement from the dock and to call witnesses. From the dock, they denied the charge.

It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Saman G. v The State [2004 SCJ 3]: “Inconsistencies must therefore be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness. Not every inconsistency is serious and material and inconsistencies need not affect per se the appreciation by a trial Court that a particular witness’s testimony is true.”

Here, the Court notes that witness no. 4 is very old and has difficulties to give a detailed account of what happened on the material date but this does not per se affect her credibility. Her testimony was not subject to cross-examination, and there is nothing on record why she would level false charges against her relatives. Her testimony about the head and hip injuries is coherent with the PF 58 produced and marked as Doc D.

In the circumstances, the Court finds all 3 Accused guilty under count 1, and Accused no. 1 guilty under count 2.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 09.04.2026