Supreme Court of Mauritius, 12 mai 2026, 2026 SAV 65 – POLICE v J D SALMINE

Page 1 POLICE v J D SALMINE

2026 SAV 65

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Cause No.: 1614/22 Police

v/s

Jen Desire Salmine

Judgment

The accused stands charged with the offence of « Assault » in breach of Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code. As per the information dated 2nd June 2022, the accused stands charged with having on or about the 7th May 2020, willfully and unlawfully committed an assault upon the person of one Mr France Amelie.

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

Case for the Prosecution

Two witnesses deponed on behalf of the Prosecution, namely PS Rupear and the complainant Mr F Amelie.

Witness no. 1, PS Rupear, gave evidence to the effect that the accused had refused to record any out of court statement but had denied having assaulted the complainant. He was not cross-examined.

Witness no. 2, Mr F Amelie, is the complainant and he stated that on the material date, he was walking along Rose Street. According to the complainant, it is possible that the accused collided with him and he fell on a piece of concrete block. The complainant was unable to recollect the salient part of his statement put to him.

Page 2 The complainant was not cross-examined.

The PF 58 issued to the complainant was produced by the Prosecution (Doc A).

Case for the Defence

The accused, from the dock, stated that he does not recollect anything.

The Law

The offence of assault is provided in Section 228(1) of the Criminal Code in the following terms:

Any person who wilfully inflicts any wound or blow, or is the author of any other violence or assault shall if such act of violence has caused any sickness or incapacity for personal labour for more than 20 days, be punished by imprisonment and a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees.

The accused, in the present case has been charged under Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code which provides that:

Where such wound, blow or other violence or assault has not caused any sickness or incapacity from personal labour of the description mentioned in section 228 the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, and by a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees.

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 all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt 1 . When at the close of the

1 Boodhoo A. v The State [2004 SCJ 235]

Page 3 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 accused assaulted the complainant as averred in the information. From the unrebutted contents of the independent PF 58 issued to the complainant, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that when he was medically examined on the material date itself, he was found to bear an injury on his scalp. The complainant was called to depone as the main witness for the Prosecution. Having had the opportunity of seeing him depone under oath, I have accordingly assessed his evidence and demeanour.

The complainant, I find, has cut a poor figure in Court for he has deponed most inconsistently with the contents of his complaint to the police and was unable to confirm same even when his memory was refreshed. It in fact stems out of the testimony of the complainant that it is possible that the injury which he had sustained on the material date was accidental when the accused collided with him. In that respect, I find that the complainant’s testimony in Court is diametrically opposed to his version to the police in which he had stated that the accused had argued with him and had then picked up a concrete block which he had thrown at the complainant and which had struck him on his head.

In addition, on the one hand the complainant had admitted that when he had given his statement at the police station, same was read over to him by the recording officer. On the other hand, when the salient parts of the said statement was put to him, the complainant was unable to confirm same and claimed that he was unaware of what the recording officer had written in his statement and that he does not know how to read. I however fail to understand why the officer who had recorded the complainant’s statement would erroneously concoct an allegation specifically against the accused. In the circumstances, I find that the complainant’s testimony is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the injury which he was found to bear on the material date had been caused as a result of any wound, blow, other violence or assault inflicted upon him by the accused.

2 Andoo M vs The Queen [1989 SCJ 257]

Page 4 Conclusion

In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The charge against the accused is consequently dismissed.

A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 12th May 2026