{"id":1061159,"date":"2026-06-08T02:55:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T00:55:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T02:55:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T00:55:01","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 – Police v Samy Poongavanam"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Samy Poongavanam<\/p>\n

2020 LPW 9<\/p>\n

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS<\/p>\n

Cause Number 1049\/19<\/p>\n

In the matter of:<\/p>\n

Police v\/s Samy Poongavanam<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

The Accused stands charged with the offence of DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION in breach of Sections 123 C (1) (a) (3) of the Road Traffic Act and 52 of the Road Traffic Act as amended by Section 10 of Act 23\/16. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was represented by Defence Counsel at trial stage. The Court proceedings were conducted in Creole language for the benefit of the Accused party.<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n

At the very outset of the case for the Prosecution, the Police Prosecutor produced two NTA certificates for the motor vehicles bearing registration numbers 5569 AZ 11 and 6583 SP 16. The certificates were marked as Docs A and A1 respectively.<\/p>\n

Prosecution Witness No.2, CPL Murday identified and produced an accident report which was marked as Doc B on record. The defence elected not to cross him.<\/p>\n

Prosecution Witness No.1, PS Rumjan went on locus and drew up a plan which he produced in court as Doc C. He further identified, read and produced the defence statement of Accused recorded by him on 7 th March 2018 at 11 00 hours at Rose Hill police station under the usual warning. The defence statement of Accused was marked as Doc D. The prosecution witness further explained that on the plan, the lane taken by the Accused from Ebene allowed one to proceed to Belle Rose and Rose Hill only and not to Ebene cyber city. PS Rumjan explained that the enquiry revealed that Accused proceeded on the wrong lane to negotiate the round-about. In cross examination the witness stated that there was no traffic jam when he went on the locus.<\/p>\n

Prosecution Witness No.3, Mrs Lovena Nadine Boodhun explained that on 11 th<\/p>\n

January 2018 at 13 15 hours she was driving her vehicle bearing registration number 5569 AZ 11 along the Terre Rouge\/Verdun link road and was proceeding towards Reduit. She explained that reaching the round-about at Ebene, she was proceeding on the right lane as she was going in the direction of Rose Hill when whilst negotiating the round-about she suddenly saw a bus coming towards her. The Complainant explained that the bus was in the wrong lane as it was proceeding on the left lane where it could only go straight or to turn to the left towards Belle Rose but it turned right and knocked against the vehicle driven by her. The Declarant explained how she lost control of her vehicle and hit the handrails along the road causing her vehicle to get damaged. In cross examination the main prosecution witness stated that there was no traffic jam on that day and confirmed that it was raining but according to her there was visibility. She stated that she did not see the Accused put on any flasher or use a flag on that day as she was proceeding ahead of the bus. The case was then closed for the prosecution.<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE<\/p>\n

The Accused was explained his Constitutional Rights and he elected to depose under oath. He explained that his defence statement on record was correct. In cross examination he admitted that he had to proceed to St Pierre through Ebene and that he knew that he had to change the lane before engaging on the round-about. He explained that he could not do so unfortunately as there was traffic jam and no other driver was allowing him to change his lane. He explained that he took his precautions on that day and the case was closed for the defence. Defence Counsel submitted briefly on the facts and invited the court to grant the Accused party the benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n

I have assessed the evidence on record. For a case of this nature, it is incumbent on the Prosecution to prove that the Accused departed from the standard of a prudent, competent and reasonable rider taking into account all the circumstances of the case as stated in the case of CHADDEE vs THE STATE [2011 SCJ 149].<\/p>\n

I have therefore examined the real evidence in the case as well as the version of the parties to determine whether the Accused is at fault in the accident. I shall first deal with the rough sketch produced by the Prosecution in the present case. I note that it is not in dispute that the Accused was proceeding along the left lane. I further note that the road was wet and not under repairs on that day and that no independent witness has come forward in this case. I have further considered the road accident report (Doc B) on record confirming the damages sustained by both vehicles involved in the present case of road accident. I find that the real evidence on record (Docs B and C) corroborate the version of the main prosecution witness, Witness No. 3 who explained that suddenly the vehicle of Accused changed his lane from the left lane to the right lane whilst negotiating the round-about emerged provoking an accident. I have considered the version of the main prosecution with utmost care. I note that the Declarant deposed in a clear and confident manner. She stood the test of cross examination and I find no reason to doubt her version in Court. I have noted that the version of the Declarant is not being disputed.<\/p>\n

At this stage I find it apt to refer to the case of DPP V Subrattee [2010 SCJ 207] in which the Court of Appeal made the following observations:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn general, however, at common law one credible witness is sufficient (vide DPP v Hester [1973 A.C 296], Lord Diplock at p 324). With the development of the common law, the corroboration requirement is said to be required in such categories of cases which include the evidence of a complainant in sexual cases, the evidence of an accomplice when called by the prosecution and the evidence of children. Apart from these established categories, the authorities have established the need for a corroboration warning where the evidence of a witness is suspect and which would include the evidence of a co-accused, the evidence of mental patients and the evidence of witnesses who may have improper motives or interests of their own to serve (Beck [1982 1 WLR 461]; Spencer [1987 AC 128] and Brown [1992 Crim LR 178])\u201d.<\/p>\n

I have found that I can rely upon the testimony of the Complainant. The defence tried to convince this court that the accident was due to the fault of the Declarant who failed to see the Accused put on his flasher and show his flag, indicating his intention to change lanes. This cannot be so. It is clear that the Accused party was proceeding along a lane where he was not allowed to turn towards Ebene. The burden was on the Accused to take all necessary precautions whilst negotiating the round-about and not suddenly change his lane. Furthermore I note that no defence witness was called by the defence to support the version of Accused as to heavy traffic jam on that day<\/p>\n

or heavy rain justifying his use of the left lane when he had to use the right one. From the evidence on record it is evident that the Accused drove without due care and attention on that day and caused the present road accident. I also fail to see how Witness No.3 can be said to be the one responsible for causing the road accident in question.<\/p>\n

For all the above reasons, the Court finds that the Prosecution has proved its case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and I accordingly find him guilty as charged under the present information.<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) District Magistrate This 30 th January 2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Police v Samy Poongavanam 2020 LPW 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS Cause Number 1049\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Samy Poongavanam JUDGMENT The Accused stands charged with the offence of DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION in breach of Sections 123 C (1) (a) (3) of the Road Traffic Act and 52 of the Road…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[130415],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[8460,15757,8066,130496,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1061159","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-bhamini-prayag-rajcoomar-district-magistrate","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-janvier","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-poongavanam","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Samy Poongavanam 2020 LPW 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS Cause Number 1049\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Samy Poongavanam JUDGMENT The Accused stands charged with the offence of DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION in breach of Sections 123 C (1) (a) (3) of the Road Traffic Act and 52 of the Road...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-08T00:55:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 – Police v Samy Poongavanam\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam","og_description":"Police v Samy Poongavanam 2020 LPW 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS Cause Number 1049\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Samy Poongavanam JUDGMENT The Accused stands charged with the offence of DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION in breach of Sections 123 C (1) (a) (3) of the Road Traffic Act and 52 of the Road...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 - Police v Samy Poongavanam - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-08T00:55:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-30-janvier-2020-2020-lpw-9-police-v-samy-poongavanam\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 9 – Police v Samy Poongavanam"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1061159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1061159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1061159"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1061159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}